All Posts (689)

Sort by

The Fearology Center

10998104857?profile=RESIZE_710x

 

This is front page of the Fearology Center, my newest venture and collaboration as I join with John Coleman, founder of Apocatastasis Institute for the Humanities in Connecticut, USA. For a brief description of the Fearology Center as part of my TFI venture, go to: Fearology Center and go to: for my Staff (Bio.) page R. Michael Fisher. (contact: r.michaelfisher52 [at] gmail.com)

Take a look at the APOC Institute while browsing as it has some interesting things going on in the alternative higher education field. I'll keep you all informed on the FM ning as things progress with this new venture. 

Read more…

Deconstructionism and Fearism

12150665884?profile=RESIZE_400x

 

 

 

 

 

The most radical philosopher of Fearism, Desh Subba has been battling over the
issues of meaning, in Jacques Derrida's deconstructionism. Subba who is founder of
Fearism and recently Trans Philosopism battles with the notion of deconstruction
that term has multiple meaning. It is not inherently so meaning changes according
to time and space, Subba said. Derrida discovered that
text has multiple misreading and interpretations at the end of the process
meaning disappears.

Derrida was nihilist Subba is a optimist.

Deconstruction is a postmodern philosophy but Subba goes beyond.

Deconstruction a mental phenomena but Fearism is neuro biological. Deconstruction dismentle the
very text through psycholinguistic way. In a nutshell Derrida considers consciousness is primary for Desh fear is primary, which deconstruct the
psychological structure of knowledge. Commentator Adnan Shafi deals with Desh
Subba's Trans Philosophiism for formidable challenges to do construction. He writes an article in Kashmiri Horizon. He questions the first book by Derrida's "Of
Grammatology" and its basis. He discusses writing and in play of language. But hunger, poverty and war are not
only play of language it has empirical basis which defines illusion and play in
discourse. According to famous Marxist philosopher Fredrick Jameson post
modernism is cultural logic of late capitalism which is decadent and useless
theory call so because deconstruction as a part of postmodernism defies the
value of the enlightenment which believes in fact, truth and rationality. Post
structuralist like Derrida, Foucault and Deluze are advocate of meaningless and
irrational. German philosopher Martin Heidegger first used the word Destruktion

later Derrida developed as deconstruction. Deconstruction was a
product of Europe west and Fearism is product of East. We can see
commonalities and contradiction in both philosophies. Before Fearism there were
dialogue and research between Derrida, Buddhist and Hindu
philosopher. These studies were religious and metaphysical. But Fearism
emphasizes the practical aspect logo centrism is a basis of deconstruction since
plato western metaphysics built upon the idea of truth, law and nationality.
Derrida deconstructs this notion and bring back to marginalized in the center
Fearism also deconstructs truth the logos like deconstruction leaves body alone
but Fearism carries it.

According to Harvard University psychologist, linguist and postmodernist
Steven Pinker has said more harm than good to our
intellectual climate.

It attaches truth and empirical world and negate the very
rationality of enlighten world. This vast subjective philosophy of Derrida is blamed for
deconstruction, Fearsm is not destruction. Its knowledge is ignored by thinkers. But Desh Subba, Michael Fisher and other fearists thinkers have developed and propagating it.

Fearsim deals with life positively and believes in reality. It also
applied to ecology, crime, mental illness and social sciences. In another formidable
book Derrida contradicts Foucault's 'Madness and Civilization' and questions to him because mad people are victim of socio-historical. They have been
marginalized for centuries they are matter of spectacle not human treatment. He
deconstructed the very idea of madness from narrow view. Because madmen
cannot enter the city of philosophers, likewise works of poststructuralist are
intellectual. Fearism involces in sociobiology. Deconstruction was a
response of Hegel Heidegger and Sartre. It is built upon European mainstream
philosophy but Fearism is universal and everywhere. Deconstruction creates the

thought paradigm but Fearsim challenges the very idea of thought itself.
According to U.G. Krishnamurti fear is connected to native intelligence of the
body. As Derrida put that metaphysics centers around the logos which has to be
dismantled in order to open new view in the text. In "Of grammatology", he
deconstructed the very language of philosophy and philosopher of language by
Jean Jacques Rousseau and very notion of spoken world. According to Derrida at least
written text has a space for tracing which he borrowed by Sigmund Freud
metaphysically he is influenced by Heidegger and psychologically by Freud. Derrida
was a mysterious philosopher who spiritualized, mystified and psychologized. The
Fearism is less mystified but built upon real human phenomena.
Philosopher Montagine said that we need to interpret interpretation more than
interpret thing, like deconstruction, Fearism does it. Western discourse has
maintained in the binary opposition include nature/culture day/night and
male/female. This opposition some are important for him.
Derrida opens more room in multiple way as signified hints various
kind of interpretation. Enlighten philosopher Rene Descartes said famous line, "I think therefore I am". But in Fearism, "I fear therefore I am suitable". Nietzsche was a
philosopher who proclaim that every text has multiple meaning which means
death of God. Derrida also in Nietezschean question the very notion of author.
because everything has said and we are interpreting the previous discourses.
There is no finality in deconstruction but lot of space remain for further east west
dialogue for deconstruction and Fearism in the republic of words.

Read more…

I recently partook, at the invitation of my wife, a short visualization led by the shamanic educator and psychotherapist Daniel Foor, where he asked us to invite in our "old ones" that is, from the ancient past. We could open to working together with them, by which he meant inviting in the well-dead and healed ancestors who have passed, and perhaps have done so a long long time ago. I was generally open to this experiment, but had no direct impression of any visitation and connected image to them. I trusted they existed somewhere, even though, I know only mostly of very wounded ancestors (at least those alive when I was alive). But this experiment, led to 2 powerful dreams last night of visitations (of old ones, 'ancestors') of humans in my dream-sleep. Their images were verry clear. I'll only talk of one and show my attempt to portray a 'mock image' of who came to me in the one dream as clear as can be (Figure 1). It was all very real in the dream. 

Figure 1  The 2nd Dream: Ancestor [1] Visitation 

[image created by searching on the Internet for a figure portrait that looks a lot like what I saw in my dream; I then collaged my own recent photo on his shirt by which I am artistically showing a relationship with this entity, and I remain open to what actually being might be there as an old one ancestor, even if they showed up in the dream as a young bodied Indian man from the East] 

12033001893?profile=RESIZE_192X

In the dream, I was with some people I didn't know that well, but nothing too dramatic was going on, and all rather vague, but at one point I was in their yard, knowing that I had to leave some things behind, and I had this old briefcase and I threw down under the porch but still in site. I thought I don't want to take it with me where I was going, although I didn't reeally know where I was going. I was aware someone could take it but I really didn't know what was in it and I wasn't all that concerned. Then as I walked about in the yard, I suddenly had this 'weighted' kind of feeling like I was losing something of my way, or of my self, or something and it was not scary but just somewhat disorienting. Then there was a moment (as if I was looking right into a mirror) and there I was staring at this 'Indian young man' image. It was alive and well and calm and beautiful, and I had no judgement, yet, it was totally obvious that I was looking into a mirror of myself--or at least that was the impression I recall from the dream. And, in the dream I was a bit startled know 'this is not myself' as I know myself and how I look and what image I carry in memory of myself. No, this was another of 'myself' supposedly; and, upon reflection in the morning, it was potentially an ally from my 'old ones' lineage that was appearing through this figuration and that it would be all part of something I could come close to, or it seemed like maybe it 'walked into me' or whatever happened in that space. I don't know anything for sure, but the image was so vivid and surprised me. I had changed and transformed. It did occur, that maybe I was seeing a reincarnation image of a human I once was? Many possibilities. For now, I'll just call them a presence and walk-in of an 'old one' but lucky for me it was this beautiful man. I did not know him in the dream, nor do I know the person in this photo I found on the Internet search this morning. The only triggers for the dream I am aware of is my putting Yogananda photo in a collage art piece a few days ago and listening to a talk the day before the dream of a Swami philosopher type from India giving a lecture on the Advaita Vedanta worldview and it was fascinating to me. Other than that, I was obviously doing the visualization exercise of calling in the ancestors led by Foor earlier in that evening. Then the dreams came--two, that seem to be about visitations from 'old ones' (ancestors) of my lineage, but I don't know who's side or what of my four grandparents. I know of know historical knowledge of a connection to India. That said, I have always found India and its philosophy and spirituality a great interest since the 1970s. 

End Note

1. Foor talked about when you invite the well and healed 'old ones' from your four lineages, you may get what he called "vocational ancestors" (spirits) that come to you in a contact zone, for which you may build relationships with them. Them helping you, and you helping them to help the unwell and unhealed ancestors and especially those closer to your blood line. The vocational ancestors as I gathered are those who are 'of' or 'know' of your vocation and can assist you with your vocation in this living world. 

Read more…

One Might Ask About Self-Realization

11960173265?profile=RESIZE_584x

 

The (Eastern) mystic/teacher/guru Gangaji, has an important distinction to make when it comes to the psychotherapeutic world of trauma and healing, and the spiritual process of self-realization. She goes so far, in this short talk, to say emphatically, that "healing the ego" (or developing a healthy ego) via trauma work in the psychological domain, "does not have anything to do with self-realization" (by which she means, achieving non-dual consciousness and ultimate awareness, which means "fearless" existence). 

Check out his controversial teachers presentation on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fM8RxgEhFY

And share your views on the FM ning here for discussion. I particularly like, how she is both embracing and critical at the same time of PSYCHOLOGY (i.e., the new Psychotherapeutic Dominance of Society)-- which she refers to the whole dynamic of such work  as "basically the church we live in" --meaning, psychology as interpretation and meaning making is now the new 'postmodern church' of a lot of W. society (at least)--and, yet, you can hear in her assessment, and I agree, there is a flaw in the fabric of such a new church. In other words, ultimate freedom and fearless existence, she is implying, cannot be attained via psychology and psychotherapy and trauma work and to mistake that and believe in it (as 'savior') as if it is the way to ultimate freedom and fearless existence and compassion of the highest order, she says, that's a mistake; that's a false belief. That is the ego itself trying to control the agenda of liberation. There are other more significant level practices one has to undertake than healing the ego, but one has to transcend the ego. 

She says, this spiritual work she teaches is "not about getting more best moments" (i.e., about trying to be more happy)... now, that is really hard to understand for most people, because we live in a culture (and 'new church') movement which tries to convince us you can get more out of life, just do the right thing, just be positive, just do healing, and you will attain, more best moments everyday, and you will be happier and people will love you and you will love people more, etc. etc. Gangaji is cutting through all that self-ego-flattering and questing to be 'saved' and be a 'savior' --and, that's what I find very provocative in her intervention. How that is related to the path of fearlessness is another conversation worth having. So many people come to me and my fearwork, thinking that they will get more best moments IF they follow the path of fearlessness. That's problematic on a lot of levels.... [more later]....

And one last quote from Gangaji's talk: 

"The human species is crazy; it has gone crazy with its own power." 

In my view, Gangaji is as good as they get in terms of watching a philosophy (phenomenologist) work fearlessness in the meeting of fear, and transcend Fearlessness into the realm and work of Fearless --the latter, "just being" in/with the absolute real/truth. For a demo of her skill with a participant at a workshop of hers, go to: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oumIB3AIldA

Read more…

Disruption into and amongst "Systems" of the banal and everyday, is a huge route to creative innovation, and not just for the fun of it. It can be potently productive, say recent researchers on organizational dynamics: [excerpt] 

 
 
LbztQsDfUr9JzFSp-JEycMTxfECyo_QTV9AT316IiUleX7DH7-9kWcpLrJh3AiLC0cOnT9zvjFEqfvD_Je55SQPLGcTdyYjOTroJ6GDTnYbU2LJuj6nW1e6RGqo2LG6HikDUhn0ZkZ3ltWyy1fAYziS-OYpJYfIxfTo=s0-d-e1-ft#<a href=https://gallery.mailchimp.com/2576dfff9468a5e3b5ccb0771/images/4301a483-6a6f-4354-8dd3-0a9599a46ec5.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" border="0" data-bit="iit" />
 

 

 

Being fearless [1] sometimes requires going where no one else has gone — or, in the case of underrepresented groups, going where no one like you has ever gone.

We noticed many companies on CNBC’s Disruptor 50 list check one of those boxes. While disruptive innovation is the core thread among all companies on the ranking, many of this year’s honorees have a unique business model centered around social or environmental purpose, 13 have a female founder, and 14 have CEOs representing racial and ethnic minorities. Triple Pundit’s recent article on sustainability innovators was just as inspiring, full of scientists and entrepreneurs who aren’t afraid to do something different.

Below, we feature several organizations and individuals who are working fearlessly to conquer challenges and shape a better world — as well as many investors who support others who are disrupting the status quo. They inspire us with their bold actions and courage in the face of adversity. We hope you find them as inspiring as we do.

 

 

Note 1. I have typically critiqued the business world on its use of "fearless" which it never defines. See my critical blog on use of the term in the FM ning some days ago. 

Read more…

 

12027488460?profile=RESIZE_710x

John Coleman, Apocatastasis Institute,

My colleague John Coleman, founder of Apocatastasis: Institute for the Humanities, sent me this troubling but real article on truth of the growing problem of anxiety, fear and mistrust in the entire fabric of higher education these days. Gen Z, the digital-kids, are particularly plagued with (from an extract): 

"We are often right to be careful, cautious, watchful, wary, chary or circumspect. A certain level of cynicism can be healthy. Each of us has been browbeaten, manipulated, stage-managed, swayed and taken advantage of, and no one likes being conned, deceived, duped, hoodwinked, sweet-talked or taken in.

But distrust can also be toxic, fueling anxiety and suspicion. it is all too easy for a healthy skepticism to lapse into paranoia. Indeed, Wilkinson-Ryan’s theme is that “the ‘healthy’ skepticism we inevitably acquire as a result of experiencing fraud and living amongst bad actors may not be healthy at all and that our fear of being a fool causes us to be less generous, less kind and less compassionate than we truly want to be.” As a result, we’re less likely to give our students the benefit of the doubt." 

[for the full article, go to: https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/2023/06/02/trust-gap-higher-education

[apocatastasis - is a theological term for restoration of perfection once again]

Read more…

 

11616668266?profile=RESIZE_400x 

Henry A. Giroux

 Professor of Culture and Education and Media Studies, Henry A. Giroux has for over 50 years been critically analyzing "Education" and "Culture" and "Politics" --and the underlying worldview and values that shape the learning and teaching of citizens. Recently he has written an article on "Gangster Capitalism" and argues where we are going, and how even neoliberalism (as 'mainstream' economic ideology) has been failing so badly in some ways, that it needs to now engulf and perpetuate neofascism to survive--meaning, to spread the culture of fear even more virally. Not good. 

[Extract] 

Gangster Capitalism and the Politics of Fascist Education
 

— from LA Progressive

Capitalism has always been constructed on the basis of organized violence. Wedded to a political and economic system that consolidates power in the hands of a financial, cultural social elite, it construes profit making as the essence of democracy and consuming as the only obligation of citizenship. Matters of ethics, social responsibility, the welfare state, and the social contract are viewed as enemies of the market, thus legitimating the subordination of human needs to a relentless drive for accumulating profits at the expense of vital social needs and the larger public.[1] Driven by a ruthless emphasis on privatization, deregulation, commodification, a sclerotic individualism and ruthless model of competition—neoliberal capitalism has morphed into a machinery of death—an unabashed form of gangster capitalism.

No longer able to live up to its promises of equality, improved social conditions, and rising social mobility, it now suffers from a legitimation crisis. No longer able to defend an agenda that has produced staggering levels of inequality, decimated labour rights, provided massive tax breaks to the financial elite, bailouts to big capital, and waged an incessant war on the welfare state, neoliberalism needed a new ideology to sustain itself politically.[2]

As Prabhat Patnaik, observes, the most radical fix to the potential collapse of neoliberalism “came in the form of neofascism.”[3] Neoliberalism’s failure has resulted in its aligning itself with appeals to overt racism, white supremacy, white Christian nationalism, a politics of disposability, and a hatred of those deemed other. As an unapologetic form of gangster capitalism, violence is wielded as an honourable political discourse and education as a cultural politics has become both divisive and injurious. The flattening of culture, elevated to new extremes through the social media and the normalization of manufactured ignorance, has become a major educational weapon in the annihilation of the civic imagination, politics, and any sense of shared citizenship.

*******

 

 

 

 

 

Read more…

Philosophy of Fearism or FEARISM philosophy, whatever way one constructs these, is a historical (potentially grand and radical) turn in philosophy, and like many other turns before it, there needs to be serious investigation into this turn and its reasons for wanting to make a turn in the way philosophy itself is perceived, constructed, and operates. Any top-notch political movements would do well to be informed by fearism philosophy.  -rmf

Introduction

I often encourage folks to study fear(lessness) with expanded imaginaries rather than old school only ideas and imagination. I ask the learners be open and curious. Lurking amongst the history of ideas about fear are limitations as well as the benefits of careful study. However, in the late 20th century, a new turn had occurred with the emergence of two concepts "fearism" (Fisher) and "philosophy of fearism" (Subba). This blog will not cover that history of new thinking on the topic as there are lots of resources now published to do so [1]. But if you were around in the 1990s, for e.g., there was no way to study fear that truly provided a new philosophy of fear at the same time. 

Okay, enough on the history of ideas and their politics. Let me now turn to the subject of this blogpost, which spun from my watching last night the fascinating historical/drama film by Raoul Peck (2017) The Young Karl Marx. Without resorting to a marxophobic reaction as so many do in the West (especially N. A.) and around the world with fears of socialism and communism, let's back off that fear-based move and keep open and curious, and let the criticism fly later. My colleagues and I are promoting fearism not Marxism per se. 

Peck's film relates to my wanting to talk to Feurbach's philosophical turn in the mid-19th century that Marx and Engels fed from as young revolutionaries in Europe and Britain. It relates indirectly to my desire to elaborate a simple summary purpose of philosophy of fearism and clarify for readers why is this an important history of ideas to name fear(ism) as a philosophical base and movement itself. But before I dive into Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach(1804-72) and his great influence on W. thinkers like Darwin, Marx, Freud, Engels, Wagner and Nietzsche, for examples, let me say a bit more about the Peck film and my attraction. 

I am attracted to any teachings that helps one understand the status quo and its oppositions, the latter being ideas, discourses, and/or movements that challenge and critique the mainstream (sometimes called the Old World view). We see a young 20's something Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels meeting and building a manifesto to challenge the Old World (largely unjust) ways of doing economics and labor relations. A good movie review (Arnoff, 2018) says this is the film the younger generations have been waiting for, those who are tired of the only two alternatives battling under Capitalism vs. Communism. No, there is a third way, called Socialism.

The young Marx was a leading ground philosopher and Engels a sound boots-on-the-ground scientific-empirical thinker of socialism, who saw what was needed to reform labor relations (i.e., classism). That's a great thing in the history of ideas and movements for positive change--in fighting oppression. And the film shows how brash the young philosophers were and the risks they took for what they believed in. The Young Karl Marx is entertaining too but it is "a theory laden movie" an "ideological coming-of-age story" [2]. It depicts some of the real strengths and flaws of revolutionaries and philosophers. It shows that all philosophers also have their politics and there is plenty of clashing. The young brash Marx is obnoxious and angry and determined. His flaws showed and it was clear he needed mediated help from allies like his Jenny and Engels and many others. It takes a community to change the world --to bring about revolution. Clearly, Marx and Engels failed overall, as have many other philosophers to bring about the change they wanted--that is, their ideals. Although, for sure, arguably, much good did change because of these thinkers and those around them that they drew upon, like the ideas of Feuerback and Proudhorn, for examples. 

What was Marx's main complaint? There are many things he critiqued of the status quo, but I'll stay in this blogpost with the philosophical ones, and relate those to Feuerbach's critique and then finally to the philosophy of fearism critique today. 

Understanding Feuerbach's Radical Descent and Philosophical Turn 

First, I admit I have not read Marx and Engels and Feuerbach, other than those mostly who have written about them. I have drawn often on philosopher Ken Wilber to understand these thinkers and their movements they produced in the history of philosophy and in the evolution of consciousness itself--the latter is my most interest. Ultimately, as a fearist thinker myself, I want to know the intimate link between consciousness and fear. I'll return to that later. 

Secondly, I am not for or against Marxism, or Communism or Socialism. I am curious what each of these ideological movements, sets of ideas and their leaders have to offer for a better (less oppressed) humanity--and, that ultimately would be a way to lead the world be be more sane, ecologically sustainable and a healthy place to raise children. 

Thirdly, I am not an ideologue per se, in that I am pushing any "ism" and think all other forms of thought (and isms) are crap. Such exclusionist and reductive (and highly political) thinking doesn't make for good philosophy. Now, I am not a professional philosopher either, and I am want to critique philosophy and even poke fun at it, as we see in the young brash Karl Marx. 

Fourthly, let me say in summary in my own words, without a lot of research on Feuerbach, what I think was happening in these 19th century revolutionary storms of ideas, ideologies, critiques and new offerings of how to live more justly and fair. I simply, woke up this morning, after watching the movie last night, and in my hypnopompic state and darkness of the bed, I am starting to link things. I know Desh Subba has written a lot in the past few years on his fearism critique of Marxism, etc. This is all lingering in the back of my mind. I want to explain what Subba is doing with his version of fearist thinking and some of my own thoughts. So, begin, I say, and write something to start it off here, and the FM ning is as good a place as any to jot down these notes. The largest power in philosophy of the early to mid-19th century seemed to be Hegelian thought. It was Idealistic. It was stunning in depth and scope, but it lacked a practical empirical substantiation. Feuerbach, then Marx (amongst others) were looking for the strengths and fault-lines in Idealism [3] as a way to bring about any real revolution in society, and their criticism was aimed at Hegel and philosophical academicians and at the pompous "young Hegelians" in politics as well. So, Marx and Engels led a socialist attack on "abstraction" (and Hegelian thought and political spin from it). Marx was looking for ideas to turn around Hegelian philosophy in politics and economics. He later would call this class-critique and critique of oppression in general. But before that, I want to focus on the historical evolution of the ideas of criticism that the young Marx was propagating so passionately. So, let me turn to some expertise knowledge beyond my own, from scholars like Wilber and Collins [4], as starters. 

Collins (1998) a sociologist, and a conflict theorist of my own persuasion, is also a great historian of sociology. He has put his scholarship into studying global philosophies and their players and movements as a dynamic network of patterns of power, well worth understanding. Ideas-people-places-power flows are all important in this socioecology of philosophy. So, what does Collins offer us in understanding the core of mid-19th century Europe and the philosophical (political) turn going on and Feuerbach's location in it? In very brief, Collins noted in Germany history of thought and philosophical circles, several networks were going on, and by 1837-42 the "left-Hegelians" were following Feuerbach's philosophical critique mainly [5]. These were more "coffeehouse" like circles and less academicians centered in universities, while basically, they would not last long and German philosophy would move into the academy thereafter. The young Marx and Engels were part of the Feuerbach leftist socialist wing but eventually left it in developming their own critique. A big part of that critique, still following Feuerbach's critique of Hegelianism overall, was to move to a more materialism and secularism in their foundational philosophy--turning spiritual Hegel on his head, as it is often said by historians. They claimed Hegel has it all wrong, and that material was ultimately real, in opposition to Hegel's metaphyics of spiritual is ultimately real. Hegel's philosophy and its new spins could never, for Feuerbach and Marx be a foundation for a just society of labor relations and basic humanist values in the economic sphere of survival. Hegel was philosophy for the bourgeois (elites). 

Feuerbach criticized religion (Christianity) and broke with tradition and Hegelian sympathy for Christianity. "After Hegel's death came Feuerbach and Marx" (and others) [6] to dominate the intellectual waves of thought in philosophy and politics. The Battle of Sense and Soul (Material and Spiritual) (Descenders and Ascenders) continued at this time in history (and it still does). Feuerbach (then Marx) were fighting back to ground philosophy in the sense-world, anti-metaphysical, anti-abstract, anti-elitist. Wilber (1996), wrote, "There is a famous phrase, that after Hegel everybody was saying 'back to Kant!' [i.e., rationality and its grounding in the senses, and empiricism]" [7]. Wilber summarizes: "The collapse of Idealism left the Descenders [materialists] virtually unchallenged as the holders and molders of modernity....the Idealist current was snapped up by the industrial grid and converted, via Feuerbach and Marx, into a strongly materialistic and 'naturalistic' conception. It's almost impossible to escape the modern Descended grid, and after absolutely heroic attempts by the Idealists, they were hounded out of town by the troglodytes. And so Feuerbach, a student of Hegel, would soon announce that any sort of Ascent, was simply a projection of men and women's human potentials onto an 'other world' of wholly imaginative [false] origin. And, according to Feuerbach, it is exactly this ['fear'] projection of human potential onto a 'divine' sphere that cripples men and women and is the true cause of self-alienation" [8]--and, concomitantly, such 'fear' projection as I call it and existentialists like Becker would call it immortality projection, there is a weakening and vulnerability created to exploit that alienated and wish-filled man by the world of the senses-material and economic exploitation. "Get real!" is the Descender-call, the Feuerbach-Marxist charge here. Then, they argue, we can resist and avoid exploitation of workers and the poor, by those who would seduce us into being 'slaves' (labor) for this so-called higher divine spiritual end, of which the elites propogate as ideology in the name of the bourgeois church, state, and corporations. Real empowerment was grassroots, secularist, modernist, and a Descender movement in consciousness itself. 

Wilber (1995), a 'neo-Hegelian' of sorts (but an integralist philosopher), today argues, we humans of the West especially, have not recovered yet from this massive philosophical turn and 'blow' (collapse) of the Kosmos into the materialist explanation for everything--a worldview of only the seeable and matter-based substance is real [9]. Engels would pen, "nothing exists" apart from nature and human beings....The enthusiasm was general; we were all for the moment followers of Feuerbach." Wilber laments, "And the entire modern and postmodern world is, in effect, the followers of Feuerbach" [10]. The larger philosophical question for our time is: What impact on consciousness itself is such a Descender victory?" It has big problems, so Wilber and I argue. 

'Fear' Projection and It's Mighty Problems

Feuerbach then was a philosopher of mighty insight and leadership capability obviously. Marx took it further, and others have taken it further too. This is nothing to dismiss too easily as nonsense. What intrigues me as Wilber analyzes the Feuerbachian (r)evolution of thought, he points out the critique of the materialists toward the spiriitualists (or at least the idealists), is that the latter are projecting ideals for human beings (i.e., their higher human potential and empowerment) onto the divine fantasies and constructions and dogmas around them (e.g., religion). "Projection" is a powerful psychological term, and it is argued by many (including myself) as a fear-projection (or 'fear' projection, as I prefer)--by which a certain inferiority complex in the human is projecting onto the immortal and trying to find a "fearless" representation of identity to attach to to make them feel better (be less fearful of mortality), etc. This complex projection phenomenon, driven by fear-based thought is pathological. Wilber sees this too, as do I. But the materialist philosophies were also trying to point this out and correct it with their own cura philosophy of the time (e.g., secular materialist, and humanist, modernist). Fine. But they could not see their own fatal flaw in the materialist (Feuerbachian factor) turn. That's the point of an integralist critique (a la Wilber), which I prefer, and going beyond that it is my contention that the very ones critiquing the spiritualist philosophies had their own fear-based agenda and ideology as in their form of rejection and criticism. They would not turn that projection critique on their own positionality, and philosophies and politics--that is, on their own self-alienation and diminishment of consciousness itself. Wilber (1995, 1996), for example, tells this story of the unfortunate binary of Ascenders-Descenders, in what is a compelling philosophical story and critique. I recommend you read his lengthy analysis. But yes, Wilber agrees, fear-based projections are on both sides of this battle for reality, and Ascenders only are just as bad as Descenders only. That's the point. It creates massive pathologies at all levels of society and the world and a lot of toxic destruction has shown itself because of the failures of modernity and postmodernity (post-Feuerbachian factor). 

So, along comes this late 20th century, early 21st century new fearism philosophy (a la Fisher-Subba) as another corrective to the Feuerbachian corrective--and, a new battle for philosophy and politics, and how to best live generally, is underway. History of philosophy is like that. History of ideas is not static. And, fearism presents new ideas (and old) and offers up a new menu of choices. At least, that's the argument I wish to remind readers of. Check it out yourself. 

What fearism offers is a re-visioning of what is the basis of existence, and it concludes "fear" is the basis, and it precedes essence and all else that is real. With that, there is no need to be depressed about it. For "fear" in the fearism lens, from the fearist perspective, is not merely negative, not merely an emotion or feeling or defense. And, from there a new story of human potential and corrective to the pathologies of history and philosophy are ready to take shape. But, will it ever get off the ground? Will it every be applied in important places of society? We don't know that yet. The Fearism movement (like Fearlessness Movement) are very nascent, at least, in their current forms. I have always argued, however, that fear(lessness) is foundational to life and evolution. They are ancient forces and intelligences waiting to be tapped by us. We still have to wake up to this potential, and I believe (like Subba, and some others) "fear" is a great channel for this awakening, for this paradigm shift and new philosophy.  

 

End Notes

1. E.g., see Fisher, R. M., and Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Xlibris; and Fisher, R. M. (2022). Philosophy of fearism: A primer. Xlibris. 

2. See Arnoff, K. (2018). The Young Karl Marx: A film whose time has come. The Intercept. https://theintercept.com/2018/03/13/the-young-karl-marx-a-film-whose-time-has-come/

3. Keep in mind that intellectuals, E. and W. at this time, says Collins, "were cosmopolitans" and globalist and more universalist in outlook and philosophies and "Idealism is cosmopolitanism in religion; it is religious thought argued out independently of dogma and tradition. That is why Idealism everywhere is the favored philosophy in the transitional generation of secularizing reformers" (p. 686). 

4. Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology and spirituality: The spirit of evolution (Vol. 1). Shambhala; Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 

5. Collins (1998), pp. 530-1. 

6. Ibid., p. 686. 

7. Wilber, K. (1996). A brief history of everything. Shambhala, p. 282. 

8. Ibid., p. 283. 

9. Wilber (1995). 

Read more…

Deconstructionism and Fearism

Ramesh KC

Thinker/Critical writer
The most radical philosopher of Fearism, Desh Subba has been battling over the
issues of meaning, in Jacques Derrida's deconstructionism. Subba who is founder of
Fearism and recently Trans Philosopism battles with the notion of deconstruction
that term has multiple meaning. It is not inherently so meaning changes according
to time and space, Subba said. Derrida discovered that
text has multiple misreading and interpretations at the end of the process
meaning disappears.

Derrida was nihilist Subba is a optimist.

Deconstruction is a postmodern philosophy but Subba goes beyond.

Deconstruction a mental phenomena but Fearism is neuro biological. Deconstruction dismentle the
very text through psycholinguistic way. In a nutshell Derrida considers consciousness is primary for Desh fear is primary, which deconstruct the
psychological structure of knowledge. Commentator Adnan Shafi deals with Desh
Subba's Trans Philosophiism for formidable challenges to do construction. He writes an article in Kashmiri Horizon. He questions the first book by Derrida's "Of
Grammatology" and its basis. He discusses writing and in play of language. But hunger, poverty and war are not
only play of language it has empirical basis which defines illusion and play in
discourse. According to famous Marxist philosopher Fredrick Jameson post
modernism is cultural logic of late capitalism which is decadent and useless
theory call so because deconstruction as a part of postmodernism defies the
value of the enlightenment which believes in fact, truth and rationality. Post
structuralist like Derrida, Foucault and Deluze are advocate of meaningless and
irrational. German philosopher Martin Heidegger first used the word Destruktion

later Derrida developed as deconstruction. Deconstruction was a
product of Europe west and Fearism is product of East. We can see
commonalities and contradiction in both philosophies. Before Fearism there were
dialogue and research between Derrida, Buddhist and Hindu
philosopher. These studies were religious and metaphysical. But Fearism
emphasizes the practical aspect logo centrism is a basis of deconstruction since
plato western metaphysics built upon the idea of truth, law and nationality.
Derrida deconstructs this notion and bring back to marginalized in the center
Fearism also deconstructs truth the logos like deconstruction leaves body alone
but Fearism carries it. According to Harvard University psychologist, linguist and postmodernist
Steven Pinker has done more work to our
intellectual climate. It attaches truth and empirical world and negate the very
rationality of enlighten world. This vast subjective philosophy of Derrida is blamed for
deconstruction, Fearsm is not destruction. Its knowledge is ignored by thinkers. But Desh Subba, Michael Fisher and other fearists thinkers have developed and propagating it.

Fearsim deals with life positively and believes in reality. It also
applied to ecology, crime, mental illness and social sciences. In another formidable
book Derrida contradicts Foucault's 'Madness and Civilization' and questions to him because mad people are victim of socio-historical. They have been
marginalized for centuries they are matter of spectacle not human treatment. He
deconstructed the very idea of madness from narrow view. Because madmen
cannot enter the city of philosophers, likewise works of poststructuralist are
intellectual. Fearism involces in sociobiology. Deconstruction was a
response of Hegel Heidegger and Sartre. It is built upon European mainstream
philosophy but Fearism is universal and everywhere. Deconstruction creates the

thought paradigm but Fearsim challenges the very idea of thought itself.
According to U.G. Krishnamurti fear is connected to native intelligence of the
body. As Derrida put that metaphysics centers around the logos which has to be
dismantled in order to open new view in the text. In "Of grammatology", he
deconstructed the very language of philosophy and philosopher of language by
Jean Jacques Rousseau and very notion of spoken world. According to Derrida at least
written text has a space for tracing which he borrowed by Sigmund Freud
metaphysically he is influenced by Heidegger and psychologically by Freud. Derrida
was a mysterious philosopher who spiritualized, mystified and psychologized. The
Fearism is less mystified but built upon real human phenomena.
Philosopher Montagine said that we need to interpret interpretation more than
interpret thing, like deconstruction, Fearism does it. Western discourse has
maintained in the binary opposition include nature/culture day/night and
male/female. This opposition some are important for him.
Derrida opens more room in multiple way as signified hints various
kind of interpretation. Enlighten philosopher Rene Descartes said famous line, "I think therefore I am". But in Fearism, "I fear therefore I am suitable". Nietzsche was a
philosopher who proclaim that every text has multiple meaning which means
death of God. Derrida also in Nietezschean question the very notion of author.
because everything has said and we are interpreting the previous discourses.
There is no finality in deconstruction but lot of space remain for further east west
dialogue for deconstruction and Fearism in the republic of words.

Read more…

Over the 34 years studying the way people perceive, think, talk, teach and preach about fear (and fearlessness), has led me to many conclusions, hypotheses, theories and a philosophy around this topic. It has never ceased to amaze me how difficult it is to find people who really want to learn something fresh and new about fear (and, typically, concomitantly that means they are likewise not very interested to learn anything new or fresh about fearlessness or fearless). 

Basically, it is not their fault they are so unwilling and uninterested to learn anew and to even transform their thinking and imaginaries about the nature and role of fear (and fearlessness). What I see over and over, generally, is their fixing in on some fav definition and conceptualization or even a theory or implicit philosophy that has grown. They have adopted such a philosophy and they teach it with such confidence. 

On one level, you'd think as an educator and human potential advocate that I would be happy that people learn anything about fear and then teach it confidently. You'd think. But that's where the subtlety comes in and disrupts what might be my easy default position to take on individuality and human expression and opinion. I am all for such a beginning of that individual attitude and teaching, even preaching, as long as it is not oppressive and "demanding" (as Yahweh recently uttered on their post here)--but that alone, that free speech agenda, and tolerance, is not what makes a systematic study and learning about fear happen. No, it will not go far. 

That limitation is part of why I began the Fearlessness Movement and its mission "to better understand..." (that's exactly what this website is about)-- and, I'll leave you all with the educative challenge as a community of learners to really look at our self, our conditioning, without blame and attack or loathing, without fear that we are doing something wrong IF we are not so confident in preaching about fear. Good intentions to give advice about fear, a mainstay, of the teacher or preacher, is often a shallow pattern of knowledge pretending to be way more than it is because the intentions of goodness and helping are seen by the individual as their motivation for "sharing." 

True fearlessness work, as a path of learning and transformation, requires so much more than that "sharing"--I guess that's my main intervening point in this short blog. After 34 years of fear study, I can tell you, and I publish on this all the time, there is less confidence I know what I am talking about or even preaching about. 

One of the things that regularly disturbs me in the common discourses that have shaped people's minds, is they think they know what not only "fear" is all about but they utter the term "fearless" or even "fearlessness" as if they know exactly what that is. Maybe they do, in their own minds. But I ask, what theory of fear(lessness) are you utilizing to make your truth claims, your offerings of advice and your expressions? I am not saying here nor have I ever said, "stop sharing people because you don't know enough" and I am not saying either "you should listen to me because I know better." That said, some will definitely interpret that is what I am saying and publishing about in my work. 

The nuances of my points above, could be debated, and I'm glad to do so as part of the learning here on this FM ning. To offer but the most basic outline of a "theory" and a good deal of how I think about these topics, go to my book The World's Fearlessness Teachings: A Critical Integral Approach to Fear Management/Education for the 21st Century" (2010). That publication is one of many of mine. It also lists hundreds of references I have looked at and suggests where you can learn more about these topics. To end here, my short thesis in that book (based on 20 years of research) is that "fearless" is quite completely misunderstood by most people and "fearlessness" is even less understood. I create an integral developmental theory (from a fearlessness perspective) in that book. The theory says that we need to speak much more carefully about our ideas re: fear and how we manage it and educate ourselves and others around it. I call for a new improved and critical Fear Education 101. 

My basic developmental (evolutionary) theory of fear (management) goes through several distinct (albeit, overlapping) phases or stages--each with its own particular intelligence and adaptive strategies to manage fear:

Stage 1 - No Fear,

Stage 2 - Bravery,

Stage 3- Courage(ous),

Stage 4 - Fear Less,

---------------'Fear' Barrier (abyss) ----------

Stage 5 - Fearlessness

Stage 6 - Fearless.

I ask people to look at the data, the arguments, the references, the logic and the intuitions behind why I have used this language and these categories. I want to upgrade our poor fear education generally to get it up to snuff with the 21st century demands upon us as a species. 

Let's learn more together! 

 

 

 

Read more…

11108680073?profile=RESIZE_710x

 

This is one of many of my visionary conceptual mappings for an "institute" of some kind on this planet that can serve to do the fearwork needed. This one is from 2015. 

ADDENDUM: You can read my 2001 paper "Fearology: The Biography of an Idea" by searching this title on Google Scholar for a free pdf download from PRISM digital library University of Calgary

Read more…

As some of you may know, and others not, I have been studying systematically the essence of reality, and Truth, Beauty and Goodness since my early twenties. I pursued much of that way of knowledge as a "naturalist" and "life scientist" and Darwinian evolutionist--but my curiosity always led me into other fields beyond biology and natural history and then into the interior depths of psychology and philosophy, mythology, spirituality, arts/aesthetics and so on. At age 71, I can reflect on these travels I have made into Knowledge, Knowing and Understanding. I am an integrator of 'big synthesis' patterns within patterns and connections within connections... 

Okay, there's my brief bio, rather informally of why I become a "fearologist" eventually, as to be then equally interested in "fearlessness." The Fearlessness Movement is one of the terms I have coined along this journey of journeys to invent and discover 'better' ways to live on this planet. This beautiful earthly existences of course is also filled with suffering and construction and destruction are part of our everyday experience. I am well aware not I, nor ideology, nor ideals and wishes can change the fact that 'I' am not in control, nor is anyone else nor is our social structures and cultures. Therefore, with all these things in mind as backdrop to the play... Let me very briefly introduce you to my Big Four Inventions (again, they are really discoveries, uncoveries, models, theories, practices, ethics)--all part of my growing and developing a generative and healthy philosophy of LIFE. 

Note: The below summaries are only bare minimum sketches (I have included some resource links to my work that goes into them more deeply)

These are somewhat linear and historically accurate in their 'evolving' to the surface as expressions (findings)--yet, I am well aware that my inner creative and emergent thought around these four inventions are highly interconnected and no one comes before the other). 

 

INVENTION ONE (1982-3): Uni-Bicentric Theorem

Although I did not know what to call this theorem (which was a drawing at first), in the early stages, it was a mock-up image of FLOW in the universe (or, more accurately, the Earthly world experiential and theoretical relationship to the Universe). I was in a sense ready and searching for a big pattern to 'map out' and display of how things flow in an order of things, you could say. That the universe, and our experience as humans (and all living things, perhaps even non-living things) does operate in a pattern, not chaos in any total or random sense, but there 'is order' to what is going on. My entire eco-biological and natural history observing and study prior to 1982 was steeped in this admiration for 'design' in Nature--and yes, for 'intelligence' in Nature. I loved that with passion, and found it beautiful, true and good, in some sense. But it was only in this 1982-3 period when I first discovered the philosophy of Ken Wilber. I did not know anything about him and his work at the time. I discovered one book, and I saw a diagram in it of the Flow of the Universe (from an interior perspective of consciousness). Wilber is primarily a Zen (and beyond that) consciousness theorist and practitioner and had published many works since 1972. And, it was seeing this one diagram he had in the book that made me study it and modify it over several years, but ultimately it came back to the same place. I was also influenced by the philosophy of the 'seer' Rudolf Steiner and Carl Jung (to name a few) prior to 1982, and "pattern" as "form" and deep within the invisible interior of consciousness and evolution, this was really interesting to me. I am always looking at "form" of things not just content on the surface. The diagram I stuck with was a great 'story' of how LIFE and HUMAN existence (in particular) goes through patterns, some healthy, some pathological. 

The basic resource (form) of this is articulated on the FM ning (and other places, e.g.):  https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/reconfigurations-of-the-love-fear-problem

As you can see, I was later to add "Love vs. Fear" problem to the original diagram of the Flow. 

 INVENTION TWO (1984): Thought Experiment A-ness/D-ness

After massive study of many fields of knowledge, and a deeply engrained and instinctual attraction to aesthetics/arts and making, I came finally to a way to depict a lot of the intellectual and philosophical and value problems I saw that were 'killing us' here on this planet. It was the year 1984 per se, as I recall, when I was attracted to put my artistic skills together with a method of "philosophical" work, more specifically often referred to as a "thought experiment." I was thinking in meta-patterns (meta-cognitively), and attempting to understand general ways of creation-making (i.e., of solving problems, of creating solutions): "How would God (a Creator) go about creation object x?" The most simply object x (standing for literally anything), would be simplified in this thought experiment to something I could draw and color with simple art materials (e.g., colored pencil and paper--later, I added black felt pen and ruler). I won't go into the long description and subtelty here of what all transpired but I basically was able to arrive at only four (paradigmatic) distinctly different ways of coloring and drawing a rectangular shape (i.e., object x). I have displayed this as a model called A-ness/D-ness (visual metaphoric assessment tool) in many publications and talks over the years. You can search the FM ning site in the upper right corner search box "A-ness/D-ness" or just "A-ness" or "D-ness" alone and it should bring up some more information for you to get a better flavor of this first of my discovery/inventions--and, in many ways, I think it is my best one overall in my career as a thinker/designer/inventor/educator. You of course, may or may not find this so interesting. It has never been to me without a great curiosity of all that it can teach us humans. 

Some links to more on A-ness/D-ness (e.g.):  https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/fearless-intimacy-an-aesthetic-assessment-tool

 INVENTION THREE (1990s-2000s): Love-Fearlessness-Fear Trialectic

This is an invention hard to pin down to an exact date of appearance but it was most importantly post-ISOF. I mean after the arising spontaneously of my co-visionary experience with Catherine in late 1989. We birthed the In Search of Fearlessness Project (ISOF). It was to be a counter movement to undermine the Fear Project (as I called it then) and to offer new vision for a better way to live e.g., "path of fearlessness." That's a long story to be found elsewhere for those who search for it. The more refined theory that came (again, a model of meta-patterning of the way Life works)--came as a trialectic model of Love vs. Fear as the problem I was trying to solve. It's a long time problem in the wisdom traditons not unsimilar to the Good vs. Evil problem on this planet. Anyways, the short of this invention came by using the Uni-Bicentric "form" (see Invention One) and combining it and creating a simplified relationship between Love, Fearlessness, Fear --as dialectical and trialectical as a dynamic of growth and development (of movements in life forms)--and, underlying this was to assert that the "path of fearlessness" is extremely important to understand if we want to shift the world from a world dominated by and toxified by fear-based living with love-based living. Again, this is an ethical project and fearlessness was the key, I thought to solving the binary division of Love vs. Fear. 

Some links to more on this trialectic (e.g.): https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/fisher-s-four-paradigms-human-condition

 INVENTION FOUR (2000's onward): FEARANALYSIS

Fearanalysis is probably my most basic invention, and it is a take-off variant of psychoanalysis. Fearanalysis is my unique way of studying fear(ology)(ism). I have been since late 1989 and co-founding In Search of Fearlessness Project (another fifth invention really), and a Research Institute by that same name, always looking to develop a new and needed (critical) methodology to study fear (and fearlessness). Every other discipline and approach to studying fear that I had found in the literature, was inadequate to my mind. This is still so to this day. So, I'll call it fearanalysis as my fourth big invention, with a closely related term feariatry (see below). 

Some links to more on this (e.g.,): https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/fearanalysis-2-wilber-s-induction-to-terror-management-theory

https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/photos/feariatry-and-tmt

 

*** 

 

Read more…

11072077262?profile=RESIZE_400x

 

According to Slavoj Zizek, the contemporary philosopher, we are seeing a dying of philosophy so severe, but it can be somewhat rehabilitated by the best of the philosophy of 19th century Hegelianism, he argues.

The brilliant Zizek does look at fear and terror in history and at times makes sense of its nature and role. He says that Hegel would be a philosopher for our times with a useful pessimism but not nihilism and we could see Hegel's predictions as heuristic for us today as in how Hegel critiqued the 'good' that then becomes 'bad' and that is seemingly an inevitability--yet, there can be still a renewal (new synthesis) to something better as well. The French Revolution, for e.g., shows this dialectic dynamic worked and simply it was a political/philosophical movement of consciousness that sought freedom and produced so much terror. And an interesting theorizing can also be found in Hegel, says Zizek, where 'the rebel' fighting for justice is in the future (and now) mixed and pathological, with the "rich rebel" (e.g., corporatist elites who wish to control the world) controls the justice rebel. This is a huge problem. My own thinking has for several decades called this the "normal rebel" (closet rebel) that moves to totalism under another roof of its own pursuit of freedom from totalitarianism. A more complex theorizing of the rebel that intrigues me. 

I quite like his reconstructing Hegel as still of worthy offering, a similar position taken by my fav integral philosopher Ken Wilber. For more on Zizek's views see the recent interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06KiOj6gjbs

Read more…

 

Muhammad Iqbal

Fear is a fundamental aspect of human existence that shapes our essence as
individuals. It is an emotion that has been present throughout human history,
driving us to protect ourselves from danger and motivating us to take action to
address threats to our well-being. However, fear can also be misunderstood and
misused, leading to a culture of fear that stifles creativity and individual
expression.

The Philosophy of Fearism, developed by R. Michael Fisher, explores
the role of fear in human life and society, challenging us to live less driven by fear
and more focused on love and empowerment.


The Philosophy of Fearism suggests that fear can be transformed into other
emotions, leading to greater emotional resilience and wellbeing. It argues that fear
is often used as a mechanism for social control and discipline, but can also be a
source of resistance and struggle against oppressive power structures. While fear
may precede power in some contexts, it is not necessarily at odds with more
nuanced understandings of power, such as those presented by Michel Foucault.


Foucault's theory of power emphasizes the ways in which power is not just
repressive, but also productive and constructive.

It argues that power is diffused
throughout society and is expressed in various forms of social control and
discipline, of which fear can be one mechanism. However, Foucault also highlights
the ways in which individuals are capable of resisting and challenging dominant
power structures, suggesting that fear can also be a source of empowerment.


The Philosophy of Fearism is an interdisciplinary approach that can be applied to
various areas of human life and society. Eco-Fearism, for example, focuses on the
role of fear in shaping our relationship with the environment and how we can
transform fear into positive action to address ecological crises. This versatility and
relevance of Fearism in today's world make it an essential philosophy for
addressing a range of pressing issues and challenges facing humanity.


While it is certainly true that fear can be a powerful motivator, some critics may
argue that the claim that & quot "life is conducted, directed and controlled by fear" is
overly deterministic and reductionist.

They may argue that human beings are
capable of making choices and acting on the basis of reason, ethics, and values,
even in the face of fear.

Additionally, other factors such as social norms, cultural values, personal beliefs,

and individual differences can also play a significant role
in shaping human behavior and decision-making.

Ultimately, the relationship between fear and human behavior is complex and
multifaceted, and the role of fear in our lives is likely to vary depending on a range
of individual and contextual factors. While fear can certainly be a powerful force,
it is important to recognize the many other factors that can influence human
behavior and decision-making.


The Philosophy of Fearism challenges us to live less driven by fear and more
focused on love and empowerment. It suggests that fear can be transformed into
other emotions, leading to greater emotional resilience and wellbeing. By
exploring the ways in which fear influences our attitudes and behaviors, and by
developing strategies to transform fear into positive action, Fearism can help
individuals and communities to live more empowered and fulfilling lives.


In conclusion, the Philosophy of Fearism offers a thought-provoking perspective
on fear and challenges us to live less driven by fear and more focused on love and
empowerment. It highlights the importance of understanding the role of fear in our
lives and using it as a tool for growth and self-discovery. While fear may be a
powerful force, it is important to recognize the many other factors that can
influence human behavior and decision-making. Ultimately, by transforming fear
into positive action,

Fearism can help us to live more empowered and fulfilling
lives, both as individuals and as members of our communities.

Muhammad Iqbal,
Doctor of Philosophy (Phd)
Student of Political Economy,
National Cheng Kung University of Taiwan

Read more…

Our Fearlessness Movement: 138 Members

Hi all, just wanted to encourage you all to take time to look through this FM ning site, to search in the upper (right hand) box on the front page for topics and see what shows up here, and/or start your own Blog writing and sharing, and of course Forum Discussion threads are also available and sharing Photos. Look forward to what 138 people can do IF we decide to work and connect and play together to revision a world that is not "fear-based" at its core, but shifts to a "fearlessness-based" approach to everything! 

Of course, then we have to study and learn and create, and check out reflectively what it iis we think we already know about fear and fearlessness, and that maybe we don't agree with others' views about these topics and/or we may have to be honest we don't know as much as we think we know. We can co-inquire, debate, dialogue, and travel respectfully, together, or alone or a bit of both--that fact is, this is an online community that can work for us or it can remain a 'shell' with little life in it. Our choice... 

Looking forward to continuing the sailing... 

Read more…

As I rarely make policies as host of the FM ning, I am aware that I both want to respect the individual creative impulses of FM members to be free to express and share here. At the same time I have to be cognizant that the site does not disturb overly the enjoyment and concentration that people wish to have when they come on the site and want to study the issue of fear and fearlessness, to which this site is ultimately aimed at as its mission. 

So, re: posting images, please do not use active moving images, as they become part of the front page and take up a lot of attention, which is distractive to those who want to concentrate and focus on other content without a moving object grabbing their attention. I don't want to promote attention-grabbing 'advertising' in other words to this site. I will ask all participants who want to use these moving images to (a) remove them in 24 hrs. or I will; (b) show them as a still jpeg image in Photos and have a link there so that viewers can go to the original image in its moving form, but then it is there choice to be exposed to it there, not on the FM ning site. 

Thanks for your cooperation to FM ning policies. Of course, you can express your views about these policies and add to them to improve them over the years. 

Read more…

11025980668?profile=RESIZE_710xI have long been interested in the fate of children in our societies and their enmeshment in cultures of fear--that is, being scared to death, being made to feel so fragile, and being unable to find a resiliency to meet the demanding (often oppressive) challenges of the day and their future. The 21st century is not going to likely be a pretty one, not for a long time that is. How can the path of Fearlessness help? How can we on the FM ning help? Let's have more discussion about children here and the nature and role of fear and fearlessness in their lives. 

One cultural critic has a good short summary of some of the issues Gen Z especially is facing... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvrMNDv6iYU

Not that I agree with everything Johnathan Haidt says about society, but he has some good points to consider. 

 

Read more…