All Posts (691)

Sort by

Fear Reconstructions in History

Any philosophical inquiry into "fear" (with as diverse of meanings that it has)--has to include a historical and philosophical look at what people (e.g., like Hobbes) have done with the notion of "fear." In modern W. thought/philosophy, Thomas Hobbes (18th century) is a leading figure in this reconstruction. Today, there are a few thinkers, like myself, also involved in deconstructions and reconstructions of "fear." I just found this Abstract of a paper in Russian, that I wish was in English, because it looks fascinating, so I thought I would share the Abstract here (published in 2017 in Journal of Philosophy 21(4), 602-11. 

10946235269?profile=RESIZE_710x

--------

Certainly this raises interesting questions, as part of a discourse and set of debates (mostly in social philosophy) as to what is the nature and role of "fear" in human societies and what should it be for optimal and healthy functioning? I think Hobbes, amongst others, was trying to make a more positive association for fear and even for adopting a fear-based positioning in terms of motivational priorities in the ways to construct a so-called rational (modern state)--society. There are lots of problems in my way of thinking about this strategy on his part, and it seems this Russian academic also has his problems with Hobbes. 

In my own Fear Management Systems theory (FMST), I have classified this fear-positivism manouever as 'common' for the last few hundred years, and especially common in the late 20th century into the 21st century. But I have also noted, both its valuable contribution and its potential pathological shadow dimension, based on FMST. Hobbesian thinking is a means of fear management itself--that is, a system of understanding and managing fear--with a particular agenda, in a particular historical and ideological context. Thus, it is not so simple to just say, oh, now we have not just irrational fear (the common view)--but there is a rational fear too. Not so simple, and that move of Hobbes and many others who follow this fear-positivism ideology do not even realize they are using an ideology to construct within, in order to rationalize "fear" and that itself can be very problematic for a lot of reasons, beyond the scope of my short blogpost here. I classify Hobbesian fear-thinking (philosophy) as FMS-4 --based on a spectrum of FMSs (i.e., fear management systems evolved from the beginning of human consciousness, history and before)--whereby, I see the spectrum having 10 identifiable FMSs 0-9. For more on my classification system, you can go to Fisher (2010). 

Reference

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/Rowman & Littlefield.

 

Read more…

Fearlessness Path: Theory and Practice

10929698468?profile=RESIZE_710xLatest Youtube channel video"Fearlessness Path (2023): Role of Napping"

Dr. Fisher explores his newest discovery contemplating on his disciplined napping practice. He shares his first encounter with "Fear and Fearlessness" teaching in the Shambhala ancient wisdom tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and how over the years he has come to understand it, let go of tradition and modify it. He offers a small piece of his path of fearlessness work--his own approach to re-educating the Western public on this essential knowledge and guidance. He has been napping regularly in late afternoons, for the past 20 years. The question is: what is their to learn (soulfully) from doing it? Welcome to 2023...

Read more…

Not that I have been overly keen ever on how clinical psychology has constructed an approach to fear study and research, nonetheless, this field of inquiry cannot be dismissed easily, nor should its findings be ignored. However, they ought to be critiqued, and from many perspectives. 

"Fear" is hard enough to define, and even the psychologists have debated its definition over the decades if not longer. "Fear" for clinical psychology has always been divided into "normal fear" and "abnormal fear." Typically, the measures of such a distinction (categorization) is based on empirical easy to see parameters, like physiology and behaviors. The latter are analyzed as fitting a 'normal' pattern or not. Anything not 'normal' is considered a pathology, basically. 

But as reasonable and practical as that kind of binary distinction may appear on first sight, it raised the issue of what is "normal" and how would one actually know that "normal" at one time of history is truly "healthy" --as it seems to be assumed in clinical psychology discourse? Surely, "normal fears" are somehow developmentally, evolutionarily, and culturally normal because that's what most people go through. They are assumed as universal developmental stages of fears showing up and predominating at one point, then shifting to other fears at another developmental stage for humans. 

Now, the problem for me and many other critics of the psychology of fear (especially, the clinical biomedical schools of thought)--is that it is still not clear that normal fears are healthy and natural? What is the difference between "natural" and "normal"? And, typically, clinical psychology does not make that distinction and conflates those two concepts. Which I think is a deadly mistake, to put it bluntly. But, here in this blog I'll not cover my arguments for this problem and one can read my views on this elsewhere in my articles and books and videos over the years. I merely thought I would put up an article published in 2000, interestingly, which does a 100 years synopsis review of the literature on "normal fear" (meaning, normal fears people have developmentally). I'll let you decide for yourself the value of this, the good and the not so good uses of this kind of knowledge about fear. [my curiousity: how is "fearlessness" part of this clinical review? because, how can one look at fear without looking at fearlessness?] 

gullonenormalfear2000.pdf is by Gullone, E. (2000). The development of normal fear: A century of research. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(4), 429-51.

 

 

 

 

 

Read more…

New Book on Art-Care Practices: Fear Vaccine

10921031868?profile=RESIZE_710x

I am pleased to announce today is the release of our new book "Art-Care Practices for Restoring the Communal"

Barbara (my life-partner) and I have undertaken a study of how people responded to COVID-19 "lock down" experience for a year; our main methodology was the use of Spontaneous Creation Making (SCM) as an arts-based and aesthetic practice, of which we have used since the late 1980s and it has been called a "fear vaccine". We've created this book for people to understand how art and ritual and community-building are all part of how one builds a resilient self/other relationship, especially arts are well-suited to this when under duress and extreme fearful and terrifying conditons (e.g., the trauma of COVID-19 lock down in 2020-21). 

Please share this post and help this book get out there in the world. It documents the process, the impacts of online teaching and nourishing a group as well as it offers a guide of how to do this process of SCM in your own relationships and communities and groups--any time. 

 

Read more…

10920453669?profile=RESIZE_400x

Professor Arie Kizel, Ph.D., Vice-Dean for Teaching, Head, Pedagogical Development of Educational Systems MA Program
Dept. of Learning and Instructional Sciences, University of Haifa, Israel and 
Co-founder and President, Mediterranean Association for Philosophy with Children; current Editor, Studies in Education: J. of Study and Research in Education [Hebrew] and he serves on the Board of Reviewers of International Journal of Fear Studies. 

Dr. Kizel and I have been connecting for the last few years around the importance of teaching about the nature and role of fear in education generally, philosophy of education, and more recently in teacher education specifically.

He and I have both utilized the concept of "pedagogy of fear" in which we use the term as a negative form of pedagogy that is not liberational. I wanted to introduce him and his work to the FM ning community because it is rare in my experience to find any professional educator (especially, in a mainstream university) who has taught about the pedagogy of fear and the difficulties in changing it. Kizel, is rare in the field, in having written three+ articles on "fear" directly and being committed to advancing the profile of this problem and approach to education. I so appreciate that effort. Recently, we have decided to co-author a book on this topic (in progress). 

I am also excited to work with him because of his past 15 years or so researching and publishing on important topics in the field of Education, as he has developed expertise in the history of Israeli education (e.g., textbook analysis and revision), and he studies problems of totalitarianism, the Holocaust, monologizm and how to bring about pluralistic humanizing narratives back into education; he has become a world-recognized leader in dialogical pedagogy and ethical issues regarding philosophy and children; he explores how to better respect children (e.g., critiquing adult fear-projection of shadow conflicts and overall pathologizing of children) and their rights--and, how to teach philosophy with children, alternative education and mainstream education borders of exchanges, philosophical inquiry generally, Jewish-Arab affairs from an educational (historical, political) perspective and how to make education more inclusive, including those with special needs. I am most interested in his work to build a healthy sense of meaning and concomitant responsibility in teachers and learners across the board.

I appreciate his engagement at times with "counter-education" philosophies as in with his colleague Ilan Gur-Ze'ev and others. These have been issues that have long interested me as a critical, creative and caring educator going back into the late 1970s onward. As being someone who teaches teachers how to think better, it is inspiring to know he is out there and influencing teachers who will go out into the school systems and beyond schools, influencing democratic and civic society. Kizel is an eclectic educator to watch in the future and learn from and I am curious how his views of "fear" (and fearlessness) will grow over the years. 

For those interested go to his blog for a listing of all his publications: https://ariekizel.blogspot.com/

References re: explicit Pedagogy of Fear topic by Arie Kizel 

__2015. Pedagogy of fear as paralyzing men's questions. In Yesiayahu Tadmor and Amir Frayman (eds.), Education--Men's Questions (pp. 214-23). Tel Aviv: Mofet [Hebrew]

__2016. Pedagogy out of fear of philosophy as a way of pathologizing children. J. of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 10(20), 28-47.

__2021. Philosophy w/ children as a way of overcoming the 'shadow adults cast over childhood' and the 'pedagogy of fear.' International Journal of Fear Studies, 3(2), 13-24.

__(Ed.) 2023. Philosophy with children and teacher education: Global perspectives on critical, creative and caring thinking. Routledge. [see specifically his "Pedagogy of Fear" (pp. xii-xxv) and "The Fear at the Heart of the Pedagogy of Fear" (pp. xxvi-xxix) in Editor Introduction.] 

***

 

 

 

Read more…

Here is a good article of practical application of how to teach basic fear management (emotional regulation) utilizing Nature (e.g., a bee colony in the classroom)

go to: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/12/16/holiday-fund-bee-brave-program-teaches-kids-to-manage-fear?mc_cid=cfbb324ec1&mc_eid=67ddc82fe6

Read more…

A Review Of Desh Subba's Fearism

 

10914427090?profile=RESIZE_180x180

A Review of Mr. Desh Subba's work by Abdullateef Sadiq, Theoretician and Generalist Writer, Nigeria

Let's begin with a story.

A king sent for a Man who he heard feared no one. Well, the king hearing that, although he has won many battles and made waste to land inhumanly, killed people and slaves and closed ones without second thought. The king summoned him immediately. Having on the top of his fence, heads of conquered kings and great rebels as trophies, with their wives as his concubines. Firstly, the king tries to confirm if the man knew what he has done by asking the man that fears nothing (let's call him F) if he knew him, the terrible king and all the stories of his ruthless and blood thirsty nature.

Mr F said, 'yes of course, I know you and heard all about you, and so what? You only conquered lands for fear that other kings might dominate you, or we might see you as inferior, or that according to the tradition of kingship and it's mythology, a display of brutality and war must satisfy the myth and unconscious forces of our custom and traditions. Also my lord, your imagination also is your master, and if it means by filling up a large field with human heads to prove over your inferiority complex of your personality type, you would do so. My lord, all these, you do, because of the system and instincts of fear revolving around your present life progress and spiritual station. If your position torments you, then your fears and it's expression by the super ego or ambition are your persona in this throne which it might not be your cosmic harmony.'

But the king, fearing more that someone knew something he never wished anyone knew. That someone knew his fear. A personal issue and subjective. But not yet. An objective and social issue lies also. " If People knew that the King wasn't feared, so they too were afraid that if that is so, their whole world view was a lie".

But the king, must satisfy his inner peace to still be the king. He had to prove to himself that all creatures feared him. He inquired if Mr F had a family or friend or loved one. They said no. So next was torture and starvation. But the man proved to enjoy pain, and welcomed the will to death, so even hunger was something he welcomed. His hands were cut, but he had nothing to lose. He had a disorder which made him feel no pain. The king was in fear, for even if he banished him out of existence the fact already existed that someone never feared him. The king committed suicide, because he was afraid to live life as such with such a fact. The king wasn't FEARLESS.

Here below are some remarks I made.

Now, I Present my Reflections on Mr Desh Subba's book on the 'Philosophy of Fearism" (Abdullateef Sadiq, Theoretician and Generalist Writer, Nigeria)

1. It's is, to use an institutional metaphor, an anthropology of the various human conditions and how they act and react to them that arouse fear. Sure, I skipped other early chapters because I belief we know the basics. The hierarchy and systems of schema such as an organization, the relationship of the mind to objects and realities that have an affect hold on him resulting to fear. They having the "appearance" based in the evolutionary epoch, mode of living (or production in Marxist terms) and culture of religion, philosophy, civilization (science, art and technology).......all masking the various modes of fear. But at the end, you tend to make a classification of fear. The dispensable, the gradation (minimum or maximum) and the one that perhaps seems to be innate (such as sickness, death, overwhelming of cosmic force and uncertainty of time).

 

"if you really want to make a field or a discipline of "Fearism" you would need to systematize the whole discourse"

2. On your use of concept and categories. You take the unconscious as an existing and autonomous realm. Although, with your use of some "Asian or Eastern" (I don't clearly agree with such demarcation as the history of thought has led me to believe) philosophies that unconscious is put in relation with some mysteries hidden as forces yet conceptualized but intuited by feeling of cosmic/material rhythm and sensual mastery of the body and environment (hence the "Asian"). This step, if I am correct in reading you is accepted to me as far as it remains open as a conjecture and to be tested by experience. There are many mysteries which I am sincere not to deny.

But the "idea" of post modernism and postmodern thinkers at least I might accept that Derrida took such a pledge, but not with Foucault whose text you lodge into such matrix. If you read his "Archaeology of knowledge" and also his "The Order of Things" (where he made some empirical analysis of the instability of "isms" and the arbitrariness of sciences and programs as "Modes of Discourse" each with its strategy of "Formation of Objects" you would see that by inference he would not be classified as such or even imply any post modernism). To confirm this, just see the second chapter of the "Archaeology of Knowledge". Perhaps the best way to put this is Foucault reply to Derrida critique of his 'History of Madness', this was imposed in his other edition as a reply to Derrida letter. It shows the difference and also that foucault doesn't practice philosophy neither sees it as a foundation neccessary for knowledge;

"What I have tried to show (but it was probably not clear to my own eyes when I was writing the History of Madness) is that philosophy is neither historically nor logically a foundation of knowledge; but that there are conditions and rules for the formation of knowledge to which philosophical discourse is subject, in any given period, in the samemanner as any other form of discourse with rational pretension." APPENDIX III Page 578. Routledge Publisher. Ed. By Jean Khalfa.

Also on your use of categories, perhaps, if you really want to make a field or a discipline of "Fearism" you would need to systematize the whole discourse, but I understand why the text is like that, with its literary structure still leaving windows here and there, because as you made clear in the beginning that other works and findings in different areas and by different people are making progress towards that "ism". That means they are under the research program of "Fearism". Well, the only addition I might say is that, it should be open to criticism and falsification of the concept any time, experience is the only thing that contradicts it's own results. This would help to keep an attitude of objectivity and awareness of bias.

3. On findings, you made (especially at your ending notes), an elaborate clinical and medical collections of observations, studies and professional reports of the conditions of life which fear is actualized either from a psychic, bodily, environmental (or "natural") and institutional source. That agreed and it is corroborated by many psychological, sociological and philosophical (beyond, Jasper, existentialist, Nietzsche and psychoanalysis schools) works I have tried to read to the best of my time.

COMMENTS

1. Your work helps to bring to Man the unconscious (which in strict psychological epistemology is just the mental process, habits and the contemporary and historical institutions known and unknown that have a grip on our social fabric of culture and life, hence the mystical feeling of it) workings and it's varieties to the consciousness of Man. By making it clearly, showing its various historical forms and also how even in the superstructure maintained by various elites and ruling class whatever their realm (science, legality, spirituality or politics and art) the idea of fear is almost innate and might (and is used) for the betterment of society or to its detriment or exploitation. I applaud this remarkable achievement. This step I believe, in your own version is quite novel and made apparent for those who wish to know and take life serious.

2. Another progress is it's collection of wealth of facts and making notifications here and there in different fields of discourse how "fear" relates them together. Also, I would add that a progress was made (also, as far as I have seen, a novel one indeed,) is the skill of making an elaborate classification of various feilds of human experience and also animal experience (for example on your analysis of fear in organism from micro to others as they adapt, feed and react to environment, but, whatever the notion or "nature" of animal mind might be still remains a mystery.) This was done at the beginning of your book which from there you took on the life or nature of consciousness basing it not on discourse or "knowledge" or "experience" but on what I might surely go with George Santayana as "Animal Faith". An elaborate philosophical discourse of the fact of consciousness playing a minute role and only called upon in the existence of animal life for survival and purposive (problem solving sure, a sign of "fear" also I think) reason can be found elsewhere. For example, to be found in the first two chapter of Alfred North Whitehead's "The Function of Reason" and also the second section of his cosmology of "Process of Reality".

Again in the work of that forgotten sociologist and philosopher L.T. Hobhouse's first part of "Development and Purpose: An Essay Towards a Philosophy of Evolution". Where we see on "conation" as the organic reaction and action towards an impulse but through adaptation it gets purposive (hence the adventure of conscious life beginning, for consciousness even in everyday experience is aroused to respond with the power of language for 'higher animals' like us, it deals with the discourse of essence related to the aim). See William Mcdoughal's "Social Psychology" to see how this description finds its form into the matrix of the whole social fabric.

"A work like Mr Desh Subba's, is surely deserving our serious attention especially if we choose to deal with it without the tradition of verbal magic and the cult of terminologies which are a true hindrance to fruiltful intellectual progress Indeed, a work to be revered."

Read more…

Madok's Critique of Philosophy of Fearism

Dr. Isaac Madok10914409682?profile=RESIZE_180x180

 

To great extent, fear can be attributed to all sectors of development in human and in a civilization of humanity as large. It can be said rightly that majority of people are driven by fear in their lives. However, a section of people who matured rationally are not driven by fear rather than by knowledge, curiosity and these are philosophers and scientists. The driving factor if I can express in this way, is knowledge, to know and that the true aspect of humanity not fear.

I disagree with you (Subba) in page 21 where you mentioned that knowledge is a production of fear. Deep inside man, there is a drive of knowledge.

Kant argues, “human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer”.

It is specifically for those who are conscious of their consciousness. Very few people are conscious of their consciousness. Every human has this reason but some suppress it for they are frightened of the unknown. Those who are courageous they accept reason and continue to answer questions which are challenging them.

I agree with you in the aspect that consciousness colliding with object produce knowledge. Most of the development in this world is a result of collision of objects with man. However, there is some questions or curiosity that are invisible which take place in human mind and seeking answer to those concerns and curiosities drive man to know why are they existing. This part is not driven by fear.

Knowledge does not generate fear rather it generates confidence and satisfaction.

Again, I strongly disagree with your claim that philosophy is not possible without fear in page 23.

It is not truthful, philosophy exists and it is possible without fear. Philosophy is love of wisdom and knowledge. For sake of philosophy, philosophers do choose philosophy and that is the reason very view people do study philosophy. It is the same that very view peoples are philosophers.

I admire the work and I support most of the statements that people without fear they cannot develop and cannot discover the goodness in them. Fear is needed to free some people from themselves to discover how great they are and to giver chance to others to grow.

Dr. Isaac Madok

Associate Professor of philosophy

South Sudan Christian University

St. Paul Major Seminary

Juba-South Sudan

Email: isaacmadok@gmail.com

WhatsApp: +211915914982

1. Immanuel Kant, "Critigue of Pure Reason", editors, PaulGuyer, & Allen W. Wood, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013}.

Read more…

Future, "Beyond Belief," says Noam Chomsky

10911175667?profile=RESIZE_710x

Famous social critic, prof. Noam Chomsky, in his 90s, has seen a lot of the world and studied carefully its current trajectory. In his latest interview the other day, 

he notes, in regard to how elites are making decisions around profit, war and the future: "If you think about the likely future [for humans], what will happen is we're finihsed; this is going on all over; it's beyond belief." -N. Chomsky (Dec. 12, 2022)

Read more…

10909700069?profile=RESIZE_400x

Barbara S. Stengel, professor of philosophy of education 

It's rare to get a philosopher of any kind to talk about fear in any depth, and even rarer to find a philosopher of education (a John Dewey pragmatist scholar) to engage in depth in the study of fear. I was glad to find Dr. Stengel's work a few years ago and noted that in the field of Education she is one of the key thinkers on the topic. So, I had a dialogue with her today in FearTalk 18A on my Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QPH28Gfvzo

In particular, this talk is about how we both would approach pre-service teachers who are at university getting their teacher's degrees. So, I think it is very inspiring that her work with teachers, e.g., what she calls "Facing Fear" and "Fearless Teachers" is out there to learn from. Check her work out, and this talk, of which her and I have agreed to do a second one soon (FearTalk 18B). 

For details of Stengel's professional website and CV go to: https://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/bio/barbara-stengel

https://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/docs/pdf/faculty/vita/2017/Stengel-Barbara-CV.pdf

 

Read more…

Theosophical Trails: Fearlessness Movement

10905132064?profile=RESIZE_400x

Any sincere history of the Fearlessness Movement, will be international and diverse in its tracking down those thinkers across cultures and time who valued and acted upon the critical importance of fear shaping the direction of humanity and civilization itself. Equally, such a central valuation of fear leads to those thinking about the appropriate solution to the Fear Problem we all face. Fearlessness is one of the obvious routes to such a solution and remaking of civilization upon a new order of principles and practices of liberation as opposed to oppression. 

The phote above from 1920s is of Alice A. Bailey and her husband Foster Bailey, and their role in not only the advancement of theosophy, an esoteric philosophy of life, but also their role in The League for Fearlessness (founded in 1931). I have studied this document of the founders and founding of The League and have written about its importance elsewhere on this blogsite ning and in many published articles and in my books. Because of a request from a colleague today online, I decided it is time that I finally put up (and make public) the entirety of the rare League for Fearlessness original brochure.docx that was my big discovery during doctoral research on the relationship of fear and fearlessness.  

Also, I recommend readers interested in this League and the theosophical connections to the Fearlessness Movement and my own thinking, go to an interview I did with Steve Nation, of Lucis Trust, a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Id7lI6rM0

At the conclusion of the talk with Steve Nation he says, "Fearlessness as a real cosmic energy....Fearlessness is without a doubt, one of the higher archetypes for all traditions, all professions." 

 

 

Read more…

Feariatry: Psychiatry in a Critical New Key

FEARIATRY, is a play from the book of "psychiatry"--as an overt word-game and conceptual connection between the two. "Feariatry" first coined by Desh Subba, the founder of philosophy of Fearism (see his 2014 classic book), knew on the one hand exactly what he was expressing with this 'call' to begin a new theory, study and practice of feariatry that would complement, if not some day replace, psychiatry as we know it. On the other hand, he did not know what feariatry would actually shape out like, and he wasn't going to lead that formation.

Subba is no psychiatrist or psychologist, and this raises the question: Who is he to be so rebelliously confident that the entire domain of psychology and psychiatry need to change?--and more so, need to transform their very identity and ways. It's a grand sweeping gesture for anyone to make. I loved it when I read it and had already intuited in my own work on fear and fearlessness that, indeed, there was something fundamentally wrong with these two fields and the BioMedical Paradigm they rely on, that is, if we ever want to truly have liberated humans and societies on this planet. Like Subba (and others), I was a quiet advocate for years to revision psychiatry and psychology--as they are accepted legitimate in the mainstream and by the State. In fact, they are 'the State' and its long-arm of intervention into how human beings 'should be' and how they should be fixed when they are no longer 'normal' (i.e., how they should be). This for me, is a very contested territory, and reaks with ideologies of "normal" and the control systems to maintain such. Yes, a politics of psychiatry and psychology cannot be ignored, in our search to better understand human behavior, etc. 

I encourage people to read the reasons for Subba (2014) making the claim for a lot of changes in concepts, fields of inquiry and disciplines because of his discovery of the core nature and role of fear in life and human life in particular. Philosophy of Fearism was his beginning articulation of that primacy of "fear" and the valuation imperative that discovering fear as such one ought to revise everything--even change our language which has gone away from acknowledging this primacy of fear (e.g., see also the fearist Samuel Gillian's (2002, 2005) work on this loss of fear from the English language as a cover-up of distortion due to mind conditioning, propaganda and ideologies). The primacy of fear is the central philosophical and theoretical driver behind Subba, and myself, and our work in fear management/education. 

BACK TO SUBBA and a fearism perspective (a fearist lens)--and, one now is reconfiguring psychiatry and psychology--based on the fear findings. It is a new awareness, a new paradigm of fear, that is being 'called' to bring about a better (hypothetically) psychiatry and psychology to the 21st century. I have totally got on board with this project too. FEARIATRY is particularly intriguing to me. You may search that term in the upper right box of the FM ning and you'll see some of my posts on feariatry over the years. 

BACK TO PSYCHOANALYSIS--AND OTTO RANK (a post-Freudian psychoanalyst and theorist)-- as I have always liked Otto Rank since my reading of his work in the early 1980s, and off and on, I am now reading his 1941 book "Beyond Psychology" (also once named, in the text "beyond individual psychology"--but he also meant beyond social psychology as well)-- the Preface and first chapter pages of this book are intriguing. I kept writing in the margins just tonight that "this sounds like a good place to start a theory of feariatry" --and so on. Indeed, I find a good deal of his thought, experience and theorizing fascinating as grounds for a fearist-revisionist accounting of what psychiatry and psychology need to change. I will do another blogpost on this soon, but just wanted to give you all a heads-up, and to get you maybe starting to think about Feariatry with some seriousness--as it is one of the least developed paths/areas/pillars under the Philosophy of Fearism and Fearology trajectory (i.e., Subba-Fisher's work)...

A small hint: Rank is very big on bringing back to center (or at least to 'balance') "irrational" [1] along with "rational"--and, he believes that is the only way to human health, sanity and a good life worth living. He is a psychoanalyst who actually undermines psychoanalysis (and psychology generally) by the time he wrote this last very honest and penetrating critique in 1941--his last book before he died. For me, I see his 'call' for "beyond psychology" as exactly a route to foreshadowing a "feariatry" (and fearanalysis), etc. But Rank saw through this problem, and named "fear" and "fearless" as key players in his revisioning--so that very much excites me. Again, I'll write out more and cite his work in another blog soon. 

 

 End Note

1. By "irrational" he means just the same as "the natural" (e.g., "natural self"); in my theorizing, with my partner Dr. Barbara Bickel, we often call this "arational." 

 

 

 

Read more…

Simple question

i, would simply like to know the pratical applications of the Fearlessness Movement. Yes, i, am reading and researching, but i, must admit the practicality has eluded me. A little help please.

Read more…

10878839066?profile=RESIZE_710x

I'm so glad Dr. Mate' has his priorities right! He has seen "fearless" self-inquiry, individually and collectively as essential to overcoming the massive distortions of reality going on that are costing us our existence here on planet earth. If so many millions continue to buy his books and listen to his talks, as he is a 'guru' today in popular media and talk shows... may they all take a listen to this quote he ends his book with--as he sets out a vision for positive change. The "fearless" propositionhe calls for in this book is of course 'not normal' at all--not when we are talking about an authentic fearless self-inquiry not some superficial or romantic, bravado or be courageous or let's all just love each other and things will be better. Mate' is pointing towards so much more--and wiser truths. Yet, unfortunately, he doesn't philosophize on fear itself, a common error of teachers of all kinds. How will we understand fearless(ness) if we don't fully understand fear? 

BTW, those who, like Mate' are very familiar with AA's 12 Steps, will note that the "fearless self-inquiry" above spoken by Mate' is an echo of AA's Step 4: 

Step 4 of Alcoholics Anonymous encourages one to make, “A searching and fearless moral inventory” of themselves. In effect, this step is designed to help those struggling with addiction examine their character and behaviors. Through the process of discovering the true nature of personal character, a participant learns to understand identify the weaknesses that may have helped contribute to alcohol addiction. When one identifies these weaknesses, it allows them to begin to formulate plans to overcome them and changes their habits in the future. As one might expect, searching yourself so intimately can be a deeply uncomfortable and challenging endeavor. Luckily, there are processes for practicing Step 4 of AA.

His new book "The Myth of Normal" published in 2022 with his son Daniel Mate' as secondary author [erratum: not "2020 New Book" in the poster above, it is 2022]

 

Read more…

Love conquers fear

Experience has shown that many of the strong men who have fallen, were as the results of love and not fear.

It is only love that can conquer fear. The Fear-force is strong, but the Love -force is stronger.10865495098?profile=RESIZE_710x

Read more…

Fisher's Fear Management Theory (FMT): Video

For a short summary of my FEAR MANAGEMENT THEORY (FMT) see my youtube video just published: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3Na-4iuR7w

Dr. R. Michael Fisher, fearologist-educator-researcher, is a Canadian independent scholar since 1989. He has constructed in this video the Presuppositions and Theory aspects for what he calls Fear Management Theory and spins it in and out of some aspects of Terror Management Theory (based on other researchers and theorists in social psychology). For those keen on theory, and implications for policy, philosophy, and other aspects of a good social life, this is a great short summary of Fisher's theory (still in progress and still requiring a lot more "testing" for validity). Fisher ultimately wishes to work with TMT researchers/theorists and combine the theories to create a potent re-education of human beings. No small task.

Read more…

 

  1. 10847262466?profile=RESIZE_710x1. The only true religion is love for all beings. – Michael Eneyo.

2. Religion doesn’t necessarily make somebody a good person. It only makes you to be committed to what you believe in. What makes you a good person is being a good moral agent. Being a good moral being is more honorable than being a religious . – Michael Eneyo.

3 If you kill or fight a fellow human being because he is not of your religion, then religion has become the reason for division instead of unity. The aim of religion is to unite and not to divide. – Michael Eneyo.

4. If religion should make you hate your fellow human being, then staying without a religion will be a true religion. – Michael Eneyo.

5. If all religion worshippers are sincere and also respect the tenet of religion, they will adopt only one doctrine; the doctrine of love for all. Then a Muslim will freely worship in a Christian church and a Christian in the Hindu temple in their own unique way without conflict, since they are practicing the same doctrine of love. – Michael Eneyo.

6. Wearing of suit or jacket is not a criterion to becoming a true pastor or a born again. Even Jesus Christ didn’t abandon his native way of dressing. Our traditional wears are good enough for preaching. It’s high time we stop acting the western script of dressing in the name of religion. Be a true African even on pulpit. – Michael Eneyo.

7. When you go for offering in the church, you search for the lowest denomination of money as offering to the Lord, but when you pray for money from God, you ask him to surprise you with millions in dollar. Let your conscience be a judge between you and God. – Michael Eneyo.

Read more…

Review of book, by R. Michael Fisher, Philosophy of Fearism: A Primer, published by Xlibris, 2022.

Nicola Tenerelli

Università degli Studi Aldo Moro, Bari

www.nicolatenerelli.it

 "The problem is not the fact of dying, but the Fear of Death, that feeling that so disturbs us and prevents us from achieving inner serenity. How to fight it? Epicurus' solution is this: When there is us, there is no death. And vice versa." (Epistle to Meneceus, 124-127)

"We could say that this book is the Manifesto of Fearology." -N. Tenerelli

The philosopher of Samos took refuge in ataraxia, but his answer highlighted his awareness: the real human dilemma is the problem of Fear, which is more important than death.

We can say that if there is phobos, there is no logos; in the presence of Fear, full rationality is lost, so it is impossible to give an ultimate answer.

Answering the question what is Fear? is in itself an exhaustive operation, a philosophical question.

That is why the question what is Fear is among the first questions a human being asks - right after the fateful one: why is there Being and not rather nothingness? -.

The question what is Fear is both theoretical and practical; it represents the meeting point between utilitarian rationality and primordial sentiment. For Severino (1929-2020), philosophy stems from ancestral Fear (thauma): if we could know what Fear is, we could know Being: if we could answer - what is Fear? - philosophy would not exist.

Philosophical thought has always moved on the boundary between the known and the hidden, and it has always sought to erode this seemingly insurmountable limit. Every revealed truth (aletheia) is once again hidden, veiled twice: re-veiled, in effect!

In Heideggerian terms, the gap between what a human knows and what he can never know must be maintained so that Being is preserved: so he does not fall into nihilism - the claim to be able to discover the truth conceals the will to nullify Being -.

Firstly, the question what is Fear is a foundational question because it relates the subject to its deepest interiority.

Secondly, just as importantly, the incommensurability of the question - what is Fear - relaunches philosophy, both because it shows that philosophical thought is indispensable and because it gives meaning to the limited existence of human beings and their desire to improve.

  1. Michael Fisher is a thinker who has devoted all his studies expressly to the subject of Fear, author of the essay Philosophy of Fearism. A primer, published by Xlibris; this volume is intended to introduce even non-specialists in the discipline to this field of philosophy that arose - a further merit of Fisher's - outside institutional and academic circles.

The essay is a presentation of the Philosophy of Fearism and its disseminators; R. Michael Fisher, a Canadian, is the most authoritative representative of this philosophical current; other philosophers of Fearism, the Nepalese Desh Subba and the New Yorker Samuel Nathan Gillian Jr. (1939-2016), all of whom were fellow travellers encountered by chance during their decades of study, are mentioned in the essay.We could say that this book is the Manifesto of Fearology. Evidence of this is the subtitle, Primer, which also implies the first coat of paint that is applied to the canvas to prepare it for painting - let us not forget that Fisher is an artist.

 "Glossaries in fearist books are unsystematic, although useful — but, for research purposes there is not yet enough conformity to know exactly what is what in the whole domain of terms and concepts and theories under the umbrella of a philosophy of Fearism. With this caveat in mind, the reader is advised to not become overly concerned about all the technical terms right away and also not to try to change them, without spending a good amount of time studying the philosophy of Fearism. It may take years to really get the feel for what this philosophy is all about." (p. 50)

 We are obviously dealing with a philosophical text, so no one expects an easy read, but Fisher has propped up his essay with a series of twenty-one Frequently Asked Questions to answer what Fearism is and help the reader who wants to approach this study.

Fisher wants to make it clear, above all, that the Philosophy of Fear is not a utilitarian theory and does not intend to offer a recipe that will free people from such a strenuous feeling/research.

Furthermore, the proposed (Fearism) Philosophy of Fear is not a substitute for abstract existentialism because, on the contrary, it originates as a real need of the philosopher.

In the text, some of the necessary prerequisites for approaching the Philosophy of Fear are suggested:

- need to be humble when it is appropriate to learn something 'new' from everyone;

-  need to study current theories in order to understand that this is a social philosophy that requires disciplined enquiry and research-based focus,

- need a maturity beyond one's own selfish needs, and, subsequently, an engagement with the community of other fearists;

- need to know methods/techniques derived from theories that enfold themselves with this philosophy;

- need to take risks and be honest intellectually.

The 'risk' that Fisher speaks of is the one that all intellectuals incur: studying a lot and always feeling dissatisfied; not being considered by a social system that favours telegenic faces and monetisable ideas.

The reader, however, can be assured that the study of Fear can lead every human beyond his/her inner boundaries.

 "Fear is a mystery. It is as vast as the universe... It constitutes an impact on human tendency, action, and activities. Human activities done knowingly and unknowingly are heading towards it... The fearist perspective is a new dimension to look at life and the world... The purpose behind fearism [and fearists’ work] is to conduct continuous research, investigation, and invention in order to make life more comfortable." (quoting Desh Subba in Fisher's Introduction, p. 1)  

****

Read more…

12 OF THE MICHAEL ENEYO'S QUOTES ON PERSONAL ETHICS AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LIFE (From the Eneyo's quotes diary)

1. The essence of wealth is not to make a name, but to make life, and not to build an empire but to spread love. – Michael Eneyo.

2. You are too unique and precious to be rubbished by someone who don’t have respect for human dignity. There are people you shouldn’t go to for help. I repeat, don’t go to them. – Michael Eneyo.

3. Why should I struggle to be like you when I haven’t finished being myself? – Michael Eneyo.

4. The very best of you is still inside of you, bring it out and achieve your goal. Your best is all that you need! – Michael Eneyo.

5. Success is hiding behind suffering, when you see suffering, don’t quickly run away, challenge it and it will run and leave the success with you. That is what others do to become successful. – Michael Eneyo.

6. While in deep thinking, people may think that you are mad, just after thinking, your words and actions will prove that you are sane. – Michael Eneyo.

7. When a friend insists to know every detail of you, be careful, for that may not be a show of concern, there may be something he/she wants to confirm about you. – Michael Eneyo.

8. Don’t make post(s) because of people’s likes and comments. Rather, do it because you have something useful to tell the world. Let your posts and comments be the kind that bring hope to our broken world. – Michael Eneyo.

9. While I’ll support you to follow your heart, I’ll also advise you not to keep your brain behind. The heart must work with the brain. – Michael Eneyo.

10. Why should I struggle to be like you when I haven’t finished being myself? – Michael Eneyo.

11. Too much explanation to justify your act is a sign of weakness. Strong people talk less. – Michael Eneyo.

  • 12. When things turn around, even the hunter can become the hunted. So, be careful the way you conduct your affairs. – Michael Eneyo.

10841616471?profile=RESIZE_710x10841617059?profile=RESIZE_710x

Read more…