International Journal of Fear Studies Volume 01: Issue 01, 2019

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

2019-03-12 International Journal of Fear Studies, Volume 1 (1), 2019: Interdisciplinary & Transdisciplinary Approaches

In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute

Fisher, R. M. (ed.) (2019). Interdisciplinary & Transdisciplinary Approaches. International Journal of Fear Studies, 1(1). http://hdl.handle.net/1880/110106 journal

TWIN DRAGONS

International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

International Journal of Fear Studies is an open-access peer-reviewed online journal. IJFS was founded in 2018 by R. Michael Fisher, Ph.D. (Sen. Editor).

Its purpose is to promote the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary study of fear. It is the first journal of its kind with a focus on the nature and role of fear and on innovations in methodologies, pedagogies and research inquiries that expand the fear imaginary beyond what is commonly assumed as how best to know and manage fear. IJFS is an open-access journal stored in PRISM, University of Calgary, AB, Canada.

Contents of this journal are copyrighted by the authors and/or artists and should not be reproduced without their permission. Permission is not required for appropriate quote excerpts of material, other than poetry, which are to be used for educational purposes.

IJFS is a not-for-profit venture. Any donations of support of energy, time and money are greatly appreciated. Contact: R. Michael Fisher [email protected]

______Senior Editor – R. Michael Fisher, Ph.D., Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, AB

Board of Reviewers – Four Arrows (Wahinkpe Topa, Don T. Jacobs), Ed.D., Professor, School of Leadership Studies, Fielding Graduate University, San Francico, CA B. Maria Kumar, India Madelainne K. Joss, Calgary Barbara Bickel, Ph.D. Emerita Professor, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, now living in Calgary, AB

2 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

International Journal of Fear Studies: Interdisciplinary & Transdisciplinary Approaches Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019 ______

ISSUE Contents

Artists (front cover) Backstory Luke Barnesmoore ...... 4

(Senior) Editorial: Introducing IJFS, a New Journal R. Michael Fisher ...... 5

Intuitions on Fear Classification: Introducing Fearotypes & Other Musings Mark Eales ...... 12

“Fearlessness”: A Poem Jim Hanson ...... 44

Mythical Seductions & Diversions: A Dialogue, With Fear B. Maria Kumar & R. Michael Fisher ...... 45

“A Sea of Future Feelings”: A Poem Osinakachi Akuma Kalu ...... 58

Courage/Couragelessness: Rethinking the Fear/Fearlessness Dialectic Luke Barnesmoore & R. Michael Fisher ...... 61

Fake News, Paradigm of Fear & Sustainability: Research Report on Climate Fear(s) Simon Bell ...... 91

Fearontology Musings: Work in Progress Osinakachi Akuma Kalu ...... 109

Select Bibliography ...... 119

ART Works/Artists: “Red & Blue Dragon” by Luke Barnesmoore ...... 9 No Title by Brenda Starr ...... 14 No Title (from Project Fear) by Charles Cutting ...... 15 “Underworld” by Yantra De Vilder ...... 43 “Saturn Devouring His Son” by Francisco Goya ...... 57 “Ecstatic Companion” by Barbara Bickel ...... 73 “The Crossing” by Medwyn McConachy ...... 108

3 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Artist (front cover) Backstory - Luke Barnesmoore USA/Canada

I’ve never had the best fine motor skills. I always got in trouble as a child for having 'bad handwriting'. I often had to convince professors in university to let me take notes/tests on my laptop. As a result, I have typically taken an approach to drawing and other forms of art which does not rely upon precise details and fine strokes. When drawing, I usually just draw unrationalized lines until a form emerges (e.g., see below, “Red & Blue Dragon”). In an instant unpredictable, I’ll become aware of what I am drawing. The dragon's eye peeks out at me from within the scribbles. As I stare into the image and loose myself in the gaze, the rest of the dragon's face-form begins to emerge. Suddenly, I see the form of its tail and its wings on the other side of the scribblings. As this process by which the dragon's form is unveiled proceeds, I begin to fill in the details—a nostril here, some spikes there, scales everywhere. Something of this approach has given birth to the way that I often approach drawing/painting with Athena, my two-year old daughter. She scribbles (e.g., “Twin Dragons”) across the page and makes strokes with the water colors, and I watch until a form emerges. Then I begin to fill-in the details as she continues to scribble and paint.

[Editor’s Note: “The snake [serpent], a female symbol, was cursed, crushed, and conquered in the alphabet cultures [of the West], yet it became an [original] exalted, beloved, and worshiped symbol in the ideographic culture [of the East]. In the West, dragons were dispatched by heroes. In the East, dragons portend good fortune each new year.” (excerpt from: Shlain, L. (1998). The alphabet versus the goddess: The conflict between word and image. NY: Penguin, pp. 184-85).]

Luke Barnesmoore From San Francisco Bay (US and global citizen), he is a doctoral candidate in Canada at The University of British Columbia, Department of Geography, is Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Critical Interdisciplinary Studies 501(c)3, Co-Founder and Co-Director of the UBC Urban Studies Lab (UBC USL). He is author of many articles in scholarly journals. His interdisciplinary research centers focus on the nexus of worldview (cosmology, ontology, teleology), epistemology and human-nature relations through the lens of a nomadic set of topics including Urban Planning, Anarchist Planning, Utopian Planning, Indigenous Planning and, more generally, the role of Myth in formation of the ontological foundation that expands and constrains potentials for thought, feeling, behavior and being. Contact: [email protected] http://ubc.academia.edu/Barnesmoore

****

4 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

(Senior) Editorial: Introducing IJFS, a New Journal

- R. Michael Fisher Canada

At age 67 in April, I am a legal senior officially, in Canada that is. Welcome to the inaugural issue of International Journal of Fear Studies:

Its purpose is to promote the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary study of fear. It is the first journal of its kind with a concentrated focus on the nature and role of fear and on innovations in worldviews, methodologies, pedagogies and research inquiries that expand the fear imaginary beyond what is commonly assumed as how best to know and manage fear.

Any research on the term “fear studies” in a university library will turn up a few uses of this term as mostly a loose aggregate term to identify more than one fear study (e.g., Mechias, Etkin & Kalisch, 2010). The studies listed by those using the term are all disciplinary, meaning, psychological- and/or biological-based with a strong emphasis on positivism and traditional views of empiricism (e.g., quantitative measurement as ‘truth’). In this disciplinary regime, fear is treated (and imagined) as a feeling and/or emotion. Dictionaries and encyclopedias, as well as common everyday speech reinforces this meaning of (definition) of fear. At least, in the English version of translation of “fear,” of which I can only claim to have access to understanding because of my own limited views as an English-speaker. IJFS is beginning with that linguistic (and cultural) limitation as well.

I have long been critical of fear studies because of this disciplinary usage. I name this all as harmful, as a barrier, to humanity becoming to truly understand the nature and role of fear. The fear studies bias and hegemony of knowledge and its narrow focus of legitimation is overly attached to and controlled by the Biomedical perspective/paradigm, Science and a Psychology of fear. I’m not alone in this critique of a modernist-reductionistic approach to the topic of fear. Indeed, voices of critique, like my own, are characteristically marginalized if not denied access to mainstream knowledge production platforms and power of influence overall.

It is not that I see this generic common emphasis as ‘wrong’ but rather I have critiqued it over the decades as being too partial and distortive of the larger “truths” about fear (and ‘fear’). Thus, I have long advocated for the necessity for new approaches, new imaginaries and journals to publish new studies on fear. I have used terms like critical, holistic-integral, Indigenous, transpersonal and so on for categorizing my fearwork and interests. I support a generic philosophical critical analysis as an aid to better knowing fear and assessing fear knowledges that exist. As I learned of others attempting to stretch beyond the bias of the psychology of fear, I could see that the best (all- encompassing) direction to go was an overall interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach and thus that became the subtitle of IJFS.

5 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Fearwork is the term I prefer for anyone doing inquiry into the importance of fear. I thank the many explorers of fear and fearlessness in human history, and especially those who, over the past few years especially, have encouraged me to start a new journal where there can be a holding container for exciting fearwork shared with the public and beyond. In particular, Desh Subba, a native of Nepal (now living in Hong Kong), the founder of the philosophy of fearism (1999), has advocated in the most helpful ways for my cause; and there have been some others. Subba deserves credit for drawing attention to fearwork because of his commitment, as an ambassador, to travel the world and give lectures on fear and its importance.

My vision was not to be overly concerned that this journal (IJFS) had to be mainstream scholarly, academic and rigidly enforced to standards that I don’t always agree with in the academe and world of academic publishing. I believe there can be flexible fluidity for embracing all kinds of research and inquiries by scholars, professionals, activists and merely people who want to think seriously about the nature and role of fear in the broadest and deepest ways. Fearwork ought not have any boundaries of exclusion of means of knowing fear. There also has to be an openness, in my view, to develop a healthy journal culture for fearwork. I am seeking out a Board of Advisors for this journal, which I founded in principle in late 2018. These will be diverse individuals, some academics, and some not. Currently, my honorary advisors (Four Arrows, Barbara Bickel, B. Maria Kumar, Madelainne K. Joss) are serving also as IJFS’s main peer-reviewers for articles. Overtime, I’ll attract a number of people to do all the jobs of a good quality journal. I am currently the Senior Editor, and doing all the design work and layout and final editing and some reviewing. I look forward to finding the right persons to share in this work. Let me know if you are interested ([email protected]) and if you would like to help fund the costs of such a production and support me financially and/or by other gifts. That would be appreciated. I am an independent scholar and senior citizen on a fixed government Old Age pension of base economic survival.

“I realized for this field of studies to grow, attract and include more diverse thinking and work there was going to have to be a loosening of my own biases...”

With time and expertise help, the journal can take on more professional looking qualities and formats but that’s not my main concern right now in the first year or two. I want good quality articles that spur our creative imaginations, expand our imaginaries, and offer humanity a new way to think, research, talk about and understand fear, from a holistic perspective. The key words that represent my total advocacy and editorial policy are: “expand our imaginaries.” Imaginary is different than imagination. Imaginary refers to what is possible to imagine. I recommend readers of this first issue investigate further what I mean by this notion of expanding one’s imaginary on fear (and fearlessness) by studying my article in this journal issue: “’Fear’ as Critique...”. Next, the first course (TFI 118) at The Fearology Institute (2018-), which I founded, direct and teach, is “Expanding the Fear Imaginary,” of which the second objective is “draw from arational processes to enter the theory of fearology. Therefore, learners may bring forward and nurture their creativity to expand their imaginaries” (from course handbook, Fisher, 2018, p. 6). The arational, in contrast to rational and irrational, offers alternative ways to understand fear and communicate about fear, and that is why you’ll see art images in IJFS as one way to keep the arational modality operating

6 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

and we don’t overly focus on only cognitive-logical-linear-rational ways of conceiving and talking about fear.

Fear Studies (via IJFS) is my latest version of declaring for the first time in human history a distinct field of studies on fear (i.e., beyond the aggregate common “fear studies” use of the term). A capitalized version called Fear Studies deserves the dignity of such a field and this is linked with my own earlier work on bringing together some of the components of a curriculum called ‘Fear’ Studies (Fisher, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2012, 2018). My first version focused on a transdisciplinary approach and was highly influenced by my own emerging philosophy of fearlessness (e.g., Fisher, 2010) and fearology (e.g., Fisher, 2001a). But over time, I realized for this field of studies to grow, attract and include more diverse thinking and work there was going to have to be a loosening of my own biases; and thus, I have opened this journal to Fear Studies, more generically and included interdisciplinary works. It will take a number of years for everyone involved in this movement of new studies on fear to come to define the parameters of what Fear Studies may look like.

“... there will likely be some resistance to the approach and technical language used by myself and several (not all) authors.”

Someday, I envision (somewhere) a post-secondary institution be it private or public that opens its doors to students to get a degree in Fear Studies, much like students now can get a degree in Cultural Studies, African American Studies, Religious Studies, Educational Studies, Women’s Studies, Conflict Studies and so on. The use of “studies” in all these examples is part of the postmodern movement of hybridization and interdisciplinary emphasis in post-secondary education. I think that is a good thing and I’d like to see it go further than that with expanding to transdisciplinary approaches. Defining “transdisciplinary” is not always agreed upon by scholars and there is lots of literature on it, and controversy; and, I have made my own distinctions around this term relative to interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary in a recent teaching video if you are interested (Fisher, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcNte9VjZB8). IJFS is based on the assumption that the world’s worst problems are complex and require more than narrow disciplinary approaches (and imaginaries) to solve them. Watkins & Wilber (2015) wrote of such “wicked problems”:

There is also absolutely no way to definitively formulate the problem or the solution because the answer, as typically [narrowly] given, is probably only going to address a quite small number of favoured dimensions with little regard to the repercussions of that solution in other areas or other dimensions....one thing is certain [re: wicked problems]: the more perspectives you take into account...the better...because it gives you access to different views, different truths, different values, and different motivations that all need to be fully addressed. (p. 28)

Fear itself is proving (i.e., the wicked “Fear Problem”) to be one of the more complex and demanding problems to solve globally. Which is not to make everything about “fear” as something negative and horrible. Which is not to make fear only a “problem” and that it should be removed from the planet. I have argued that “fearuality” (analogous to say, sexuality) is not always best situated as a problem. Yet, the Fear Problem seems a useful label for recognizing the macro-scale of it. However, this will always be open for creative dialogues, and debates in Fear Studies. I also want to mention, that for some readers who come to IJFS there will likely be some resistance to

7 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

the approach and technical language used by myself and several (not all) authors. This is inevitable with a new field of studies, because interdisciplinarity (and transdisciplinary even more so) is complex and creates hybridizing of ideas and theories, so there’s no “just one right” definition for fear, or anything else really. There are multiple perspectives—albeit, some perspectives may be more useful than others, or some combination of perspectives in a particular configuration (e.g., holistic-integral) may be better than other combinations; but context, and purpose and means by which perspectives are utilized is all important rather than some fixed rules or regimes of ‘truth’ about perspectives.

Thus, one has to keep an open-mind (perspective) and not try to prematurely foreclose on what is the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ way to understand things and to research them. Co-authoring with Luke Barnesmoore, for this issue of IJFS really pushed my metaphysical boundaries as he uses a nomadic and philosophical methodology orientation. Another problem when one goes into a transdisciplinary mode of analysis is that the analyses tend to get very complex, creative, unexpected, and speculative. They can be highly philosophical and theoretical—with people creating all kinds of neologisms (making up new words) and new conceptualizations (e.g., when fear becomes ‘fear’ becomes equivalent to critical and critique itself; a view I have been playing with). This exploratory nature to fearwork can feel for some a bit destabilizing. At some level (conscious or unconscious) it is working with fear (almost) intended, in part, to discomfort the comfortable fear imaginary and the habitual conditioned supporting vocabularies that keep us thinking in (only) traditional, disciplinary and/or reductionistic ways—the latter characterisically not very creative ways. So, Fear Studies pushes these comfort zones. At times, fearwork may feel too “theoretical” and “impractical” as well. And thus, I will always attempt, as Senior Editor to include some articles more practical and with less of the complicating jargon of some authors. And, be prepared, not all authors in IJFS will define every new term on fear but sometimes they will do so for certain terms.

On that point of new vocabulary, I would recommend some Glossaries that are available on new fear-terms, especially as influenced by the philosophy of fearism (Desh Subba as founder) (e.g., see Fisher & Subba, 2016, pp. 155-159 and/or Fisher, Subba & Kumar, 2018, pp. 177-87). Overall, I have tagged this pursuit and inquiry of a radical fearworking with transdisciplinarity as essential to a critical literacy of fear (and fearlessness). Over the years, with lots of practice, these fear-term configurations are not only weird or different on paper when written, or spoken... there is actually a re-wiring (real and/or metaphorically) that goes on in my consciousness (brain and/or mind)—and, it feels like I enter a different fear territory. I know for some, this may not register at this point, and seem esoteric.

Kumar (2018), has at times been also impressed by this expansive vocabulary in Fear Studies, for example, his review of Eneyo (2018) left him remarking on Eneyo’s text: “While journeying by the train of his thoughts, the author [i.e., Eneyo] finds himself in a never ending ‘fear territory’ where he exhibits his unique knack of rhetoric with scintillating coinage like ‘fear conflict’, ‘fear territory’, ‘fear dilemma’, ‘fear climax’, etc. These new vocabularies expand the human mind to understand fear more insightfully as Lera Boroditsky, a cognitive scientist, infers from her research that the new words and new dialects do shape the way we think” (p. xvi). Indeed, although I refer to fear territory as well (and, overlap with Eneyo’s fearwork to some degree), his definition of fear territory is not mine per se; my words fail to describe the shift of consciousness, of level, of

8 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Summary of Contents in this issue of IJFS:

As an artist myself, there can never be enough art in a journal on a serious topic. This arational imaginative modality of expression can offer, I believe, lots of insight to work from when it comes to the topic of fear and fearlessness. Interestingly, there’s a whole lot in this issue on myth(ology) which just spontaneously came together, without my knowing that would be so prominent. Yantra De Vilder, music composer and artist from Australia, who has kindly let me play with an excerpt from her image of Innana’s journey to the “Underworld.” It was fun to see what I could create to bring mystery and subtle aesthetic connections from the underworld, unconscious, and wherever else these ‘beings’ come from that make up an art image. It’s all about reflecting on these, like mirrors, as a process of bringing the unconscious (more fearful-side of the Shadow) to light and consciousness, that can be therapeutic. Equally, I am pleased to have the naive art of a father and child in spontaneous play without all the fears that can so cramp the style and flow that naturally evolves from the soul when we let it. Luke and Athena in a dance of color and gesture is a nice touch of spice and aliveness for the first IJFS cover.

“... the centrality of the dragon myth in my own life has been in no small part brought on by a vision I had while living in Ontario. Two heads (one red, one blue) with a body formed by pearly white clouds.” -Luke Barnesmoore

Luke’s own long emotional and academic interest in myth(ology) and his visionary (mystical) experiences, sometimes while in emotional and spiritual crisis and processing, involves a particular vulnerability of the quality I would suggest is fearlessness in one of its many forms. His rendering of “Red & Blue Dragon” image (below), where serpent/dragon is often a symbol of destruction and fear/terror (in the West)—the ego is being threatened, is by contrast a symbol of regeneration and wisdom (in the East). Luke wrote in his description to me of this crisis time and his vision:

9 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

I was having very hard time coping with the white Christian madness of rural Ontario. The first three days of the week in question I felt like I was dying (body, mind, heart and soul). On the fourth day a number of things happened. First, I got out of the shower and looked in the mirror— as I breathed in my face became white, as I breathed out it became black, on my forehead there was a pulsating point of light, around me was an aura, violet near the body, a deep ocean blue surrounding the violet. I closed my eyes. First I saw the Dragon of Destruction (the dragon twins depicted above). Next I saw the ocean, with the sun beginning to set in the distance. As the sun set its light poured into my vessel. I returned to this world with a heightened state of consciousness; bliss, remarkable and marvelous after the previous three days of emptiness, an expanded sense of self, something as new to my experience in this life as it was old beyond time. (personal comm. Jan. 19/19)

BODY, MIND, HEART, SOUL ... this is all part of holistic-integral embracing of fear and accessing emergent fearlessness and a new consciousness structure/stage/level in our existence that can hold all of our experiences, without making them pathological or abnormal to where we want to distance ourselves from them. Fear Studies, as I envision it (and it’s ongoing), will always be interested in integrating the vast diversity of altered states, diverse emotions and affects, the uncanny and the strange, as well as the more rational (and trans-rational) cognitive and moral dimensions of life.

When I first read Mark Eales’ submission to this issue, I thought it this was a powerful exploration where he let himself risk to innovate, hypothesize and also become vulnerable (one of the traits of authentic fearlessness): “Fear experience is at the very beginning of a non-academic, scholarly type’s thought process when considering submitting to an academic journal [i.e., IJFS].” From mythology (as Barnesmoore and Kumar access in this issue) to focusing on intuition, as Eales does, I am delighted to see fearwork expanding its methodological scope into the arational and legitimating the liminal and ‘margins’ of our experience, or what has been made marginal because of an overly hegemonic rigid W. Enlightenment Age of Reason that is distrustful (typically) of that which is not merely rational and logical. Eales uses an intuitional logic for his arguments and models. He then proposes a way of humble collaboration in Fear Studies via his youthful approach, that is, “Propositional Dynamic Collaborative Enquiry,” very well suited to a digital globalizing commons of knowledge and research processes. He self-identifies as an intuit and argues for their importance outside of traditional academic circles. He then shows readers that all people sincere in intention and commitment can do their own inquiry and produce creative works on the topic of fear and even contribute to a revolution of humanity, which he has in mind. His piece has a lot of heart—not just mind, and that makes it a rich work to behold. On the intellectual-side of his passion, we read about his hypotheses and images for something called fearotypes. A controversial topic worth looking at in Fear Studies, and I see it as especially a good addition to applied Feariatry and in general to the taxonomic interests of Fearology.

Another controversial topic in this issue, and for Fear Studies in general, are the problems and pitfalls around “defining fear,” which is part of Barnesmoore’s in depth aims—whereby he proposes that utilizing “courage/couragelessness” may be enhancing, alongside the often more common discourses (especially by Fisher) on “fear/fearlessness.” I welcome Barnesmoore’s lead in this direction and have enjoyed co- authoring this piece that critically assesses the Artificial worldview of the Colonial-Modernist incarnation that create skewed, if not pathological, understandings, and fear-based understandings of fear, courage and so many more phenomena that Fear Studies engages. This article is a brain-swerve and demands a lot from the reader.

Then there is the wonderful poem, simply “Fearlessness,” by Jim Hanson with his complex Buddhistic discipline and flare—reflecting deep thoughts on existence and dying and death, of which he is working on a book around this latter topic. Jim is well into his 70s and knows how priorities shift with aging. He is determined to make it a creative process. I encourage more poetics and poetry from all in future issues of

10 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

IJFS. After all, it is not surprising to me that Desh Subba, founder of philosophy of fearism, has been best known for his poetry in the far East for decades, and later turned his thinking and artistic poetic sensibility to the central topic of fear.

Simon Bell’s article derives from an innovative, mostly informal, inquiry into the way people think and talk about fear. I like these kinds of studies-in-progress that work with a practical intuitional methodology and sensing of what kind of FearTalks* (my term) are needed today and in the future. Bell’s interviews go around the world where he works and travels and has a lot to offer us all. His diverse, creative and erudite references are a treat in themselves—especially as climate change fear(s) are an inevitable face of our precarious future. On the deeply philosophical-side, Osinakachi Kalu, from Nigeria, has sent me over the last year some of his writing sketches on what he calls grounds for a fearontology. I’m happy to share some rich gems from his thoughts, not for any purpose per se but to let readers know of some of the fresh thinking that is going on behind the scenes, in the minds, passions and solitudes of our youngest fearologists becoming. For readers wishing a ‘lighter’ read, with the flow of conversational style, you may want to read Kumar and my dialogue piece first, or as interludes... -enjoy, Michael

REFERENCES

Eneyo, M. B. (2018). Philosophy of fear: A move to overcoming negative fear. Australia: Xlibris. Fisher, R.M. (2001). 'Fear' studies: A conceptual proposal. Technical Paper No. 11. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R.M. (2001a). Fearology: Biography of an idea. Technical Paper No. 12. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R. M. (2005). Critical integral ‘Fear’ Studies: Basic organizational framework. Technical Paper No. 19. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R. M. (2006). Invoking ‘Fear’ Studies. The Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 22(4), 39-71. 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. Fisher, R. M. (2012). Foundations for ‘Fear’ Studies: 9 propositions. Technical Paper No. 43. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R. M. (2018). ‘Fear’ Studies, 12 years later: Progress and barriers. Technical Paper No. 74. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R. M., & Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Australia: Xlibris. Fisher, R. M., Subba, D., & Kumar, B. M. (2018). Fear, law and criminology: Critical issues in applying the philosophy of fearism. Australia: Xlibris. Kumar, B. M. (2018). Review. In M. B. Eneyo, Philosophy of fear: A move to overcoming negative fear (pp. xv- xvii). Australia: Xlibris. Mechias, M-L., Etkin, A. & Kalisch, R. (2010). A meta-analysis of instructed fear studies: Implications for conscious appraisal of threat. NeuroImage, 49(2), 1760-68. Watkins, A., & Wilber, K. (2015). Wicked and wise: How to solve the world’s toughest problems. Chatham, Kent: Urbane Publications Ltd.

[* see Fisher’s YouTube channel videos “FearTalks” series: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC01OHEXhSuxnyilmkV0f95A] ] R. Michael Fisher, Ph.D. Is an artist, fearologist, educator, and founder, director of In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute and The Fearology Institute. His recent communications are online in the FM ning community he co-founded with Barbara Bickel in 2015: http://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com Contact: [email protected]

11 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Intuitions on Fear Classification: Introducing Fearotypes & Other Musings

- Mark Eales United Kingdom

Abstract Despite the pervasive nature of fear in human life, there is a distinct lack of exploration or emphasis in scholarly or colloquial discourse on fear, that arguably inhibits the ability to overcome its holistic and often detrimental effects. Inspired by R. Michael Fisher (Fearology) and Desh Subba (Fearism), whom are attempting serious scholarly work on the subject of fear, this article represents a stream of consciousness from the very provisional musings of a layperson in an attempt to make sense of the world from a purely intuitive position, while working on the premise that fear should be the overriding issue of humanity to address and the focal point of any future revolution. The author explores some key ideas from in their earliest conception, most notably Fearotypes; a potential way to classify people’s common responses to fear to help initiate the process of highlighting the ubiquity of fear in human life. With sincere care for others and the world expressed, the author communicates a longing for a revolution so that humans might, as a species, begin to realise their incredible potential. This paper represents the author’s own beginning and small contribution to that revolution. The revolution speculated to be the most important throughout history, in any present or any future: that is, the revolution against fear based life.

A Layperson’s Introduction

I have worked for over 20 years in the mental health sector as a healthcare assistant and mental health nurse (currently), mostly in the psychiatric hospital setting with adolescents whom exhibit complex psychological, social, emotional (and spiritual) issues, often presenting with significant challenging behaviour. In that time, I observed on a daily basis the extreme suffering and volatility expressed by the young people whom had been subject to traumatic and chaotic experiences, absence of stability, safety, basic care and even love in their past. It would be wrong to say that I have not seen vast resilience and hope…that I have not witnessed laughter and joy; humans are amazing in this regard, with our ability to find the hilarity, the beauty and the wonderment in life, despite the pain and fear.

Invariably as an empath, I have become somewhat jaded from my observations over the years, however this has birthed a deep desire to make sense of those young people’s lives and others like them in the world, desperately seeking solutions to alleviate suffering. For a long time, I have only been able to

12 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

consolidate such experiences by accepting the premise that humans lack free will, that we cannot “do”, that we are beast machines unable to self-actualise, unable to quell the base instincts born from an indiscriminate self-organising causal chain. I do paint a rather cynical and pessimist viewpoint of the world, although I do concede that this may be reflective of my own rather miserable introspection, and the subsequent acknowledgement that I am, myself, a somewhat chaotic and limited being, ruled by fear, suffering from significant anxiety and anger issues now and throughout my life.

It may well be that my desire for change is not in fact an expression of altruism and hope, but an attempt to hide, or justify my own shame, my own inability to gain self-mastery, for my general lack. Despite such scathing self-criticism, I do wonder sometimes if a guiding hand is showing me a life purpose, offering signposts…an opportunity taken or not perhaps, a film, a book, a piece of music, a YouTube video, a person or persons entering my life…a movement or cause, discovered at just the right time, with just the right message…... leading me to write this first article, and committing to this fear exploration.

Whatever be the case, evolving from my views on free will, I have only begun in recent years, to consider the fear problem, being stunned on my provisional searches to note a distinct lack of breadth within the fear literature. Typically with the emphasis on the clinical manifestations such as anxiety, or the political/media representations, such as crime, terrorism and the like. Despite this, two notable figures arose from the mist, highlighting the holistic, all-encompassing nature and significance of fear, offering me the inspiration to take fear seriously. R. Michael Fisher’s development of fear management/education and Fearology (2010) and Desh Subba’s Philosophy of Fearism (2014) appear to be breaking new grounds in the realms of fear enquiry, whilst also seemingly doing something radically simple; placing fear and fearlessness at the heart of scholarly discourse, developing a new global fear/fearlessness lexicon and subsequent paradigm (Fisher, 2012a; Fisher and Subba, 2016).

It is highly unlikely that I will ever be able to match the methodological rigor or scholarship demonstrated by the likes of Fisher and Subba, and so this article reads very much like one man’s honest musings…a stream of consciousness arising from the personal experience and subsequent contemplation of the mental health sector, and the extended observations and interpretation of the world and life in general. This is driven by a desperate and sincere desire to do good, to bring about positive change and perhaps even a revolution to reduce the suffering of others and afford them the opportunity to self-actualise and unlock a possible latent transcendent potential residing within.

“.... over the past few years I have begun to believe and view fear as ‘the central problem of humanity’”

This article, inspired by the scholars Fisher and Subba (with rather primitive attempts to contribute to and reference the burgeoning fear nomenclature), will introduce the intuitive ideas of a layperson in their earliest conception, that include an expansion of the ‘fight and flight’ response, that offer the foundation for the emergence of a possible typological system (Fearotypes) to better understand people’s responses to fear and subsequent behaviour. This paper is attempting to create transparency of thought at the beginning of one person’s journey, utilising intuition in place of a systematic academic process, so that any future work will be understood universally, allowing those within and outside academia to actively

13 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

engage in the process of developing the ideas in this paper, in what may be described as a form of Propositional Dynamic Collaborative Enquiry. This article concludes with a brief discussion on the implications of the content introduced, and possible future areas of enquiry to be considered. It is important to note that this article largely focuses on the destructive elements of fear, omitting discussions on the clear utility and evolutionary necessity of it. Within this context, when phrases such as “fear based life” and “fear problem” are used, this will be in reference to the destructive elements of fear. These phrases will be distinct from uses in other scholarly works and used exclusively in a colloquial manner.

“We are, after all, part of the world and why not posit that there are humans, that we might intuits”

No Title by Brenda Starr (Commons Images)

14 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Illustration by Charles Cutting, permission to reproduce by Charles Cutting ©2017. An inspiration for the comic: Project Fear. 2017. Simon Bell & Charles Cutting. Open UniversityK https://www.open.edu/openlearn/project-fear

15 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

“Prologue” of a “Wanna Be” Revolutionary

Fear is experienced at the very beginning of a non-academic, scholarly type’s thought process when considering submitting to an academic journal like IJFS. More so when the said Journal is to be the first of its kind, trailblazing to put fear studies at the heart of all enquiry. It is made more daunting when you consider the company that you may be amongst. Articles written by those of notable Intellect and ability, whom are pioneers pushing the boundaries of fear and fearlessness studies. Seminal figures that have spent much of their academic and personal life exploring the intricacies of fear to introduce key concepts within the scholarly literature such as Fearology (Fisher, 2010) and Fearism (Subba, 2014).

As a non-academic/scholarly type, I have questioned what possible contribution I can offer in such esteemed company, waving away any fancies that manifest regarding my contribution to the academic literature, despite the fact that the subject of fear has become increasingly important in my life. It would be easy to leave it all to the “professionals” or “adepts” to discover and uncover knowledge and challenge the status quo, demystifying the subject of fear in the process. As the layperson it would be easy to simply observe these machinations; but then, this need to be part of something important, to be a voice that seeks harmony in a discordant, cacophonous melting pot (that is life) does not subside, and in fact grows, and perhaps allows for fearlessness in some form to emerge, guiding toward an alternative path in this emerging frontier that is fear/fearlessness studies, in the hope of doing some good in the world.

To cut a very complex and long story short: over much musing, over the past few years I have begun to believe and view fear as “the central problem of humanity.” In my epiphany moment a few years ago, I thought that I might even like to start a “revolution” against the destructive aspects of fear, that I argue governs humanity; however to begin such “fear or fearlessness work,” I believe it essential to first reveal where fear hides in guises but also often in plain sight—before subsequent phases in the revolution emerge, that might consist of challenging and then correcting the problems arising from fear.

I am a flawed man, and to be very honest, in many ways, a desperate sort of fellow, but I have made a pact with myself to dedicate my life to this endeavour…of highlighting, fighting and righting fear based life, to help the world overcome the fear problem. This may be my role and the alternative route to the scholarly path, and so with this in mind, a non-academic/scholarly type starts to write freely...to write fearlessly.

On Intuition and Fighting the Fear

For the non-academic/scholarly type, such a way is framed inevitably through the lens of subjectivity and personal experience and dare I say anecdotes, but perhaps without the shackles of the expected highbrow forms of enquiry within academia, a far more intuitive view on the world is perhaps encouraged to come to prominence. We are, after all, part of the world and why not posit that there are humans, that we might call for now; intuits, that can contribute to academia through an unknown but equally plausible form of knowing? guided by instinct… by an innate intuition. Certainly, I am not the first to highlight the significance of intuition as a form of enquiry (Noddings & Shore, 1998; Pilard, 2015; Isenman, 2018) although I am equally not naïve to think that intuition is not without criticism (Cosmides and Tooby, 1994). Certainly on my reading of Schumacher (1978), whom was clearly trying to make sense of the world and help others in this endeavour, I have considered that though our tools of knowing (the senses) are somewhat limited, we may yet require…and subsequently acquire, other, yet unknown tools to know the world.

16 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

In my subsequent contemplation I have wondered (as I am sure many others have), if intuition is, in fact, that tool of knowing that assists in the unlocking of a hidden, intangible and “otherworldly” knowledge, hypothesising that with conscious and serious effort to develop this tool (perhaps through spiritual/philosophical practices) a greater understanding of reality and perhaps even to objective truths, meaning and purpose may be discovered. I have intuited that the greatest minds in history were possibly the blend of being brilliant…having genius, but also being great intuits. I might argue that in the pursuit of knowledge (in academia) genius and high intellect is frequently present, but more often than not, intuition plays a much lesser role (although not entirely absent). Certainly I might suggest that those with the intuitive talents whom lack genius or even above average intelligence are not readily visible within academic enquiry. This is a shame in my view, because I would argue that for those without the genius, intuitions may yet have a role to play in the world of academic enquiry and scholarly discourse, whether that be in the way of subjective, humanistic confirmation of an idea, or in the finding, or at the very least, in the peeking of others interest into that academic enquiry in the first place, encouraging novel areas of exploration previously not considered.

Essentially I suggest that Intuits may not understand the nomenclature of any given subject, be able to explain what p values are, or name seminal figures in the academic literature etc., but they may be able to offer a starting point and/or give a perceptive air of approval on what may feel right when outcome measures or findings are recorded. I am not suggesting that people should live in their own subjective, relativistic bubbles (although they can if they like) to create personal meaning from all phenomena that includes language. This kind of individualism could very well lead to all sorts of discrimination, division and even tyranny, driven by narcissistic psychopathy. I am simply suggesting that it is possible that there may be people in the world with a talent to intuit certain ideas that may be useful in the process of any given inquiry, be that academic, or other areas of enquiry (such as business, policy development and planning etc.)

It may be said that over the centuries, people that were not necessarily of scientific or philosophical leanings found another route to knowledge in the form of the esoteric (Hall, 2003). Perhaps this is where intuits resided. I do not intend to paint a utopic or romantic picture of such individuals, I am sure esotericism attracted its fair share of dishonest, exploitative charlatans and those using this as an escape from a reality, rather than a means to lift the veil of ignorance, but with caveats accepted, I must admit that esotericism has always intrigued me and filled me with a certain sense of mystery and wonder that may explain my lack of academic nous.

“I think that this might offer a novel form of research or scholarly contribution.... an air of altruistic scholarship”

Whatever the case, at the very least, the intuit may offer a bridge from the scholarly realm, to the layperson, that surely feels alienated from time to time, with the development of knowledge acquisition and distribution hierarchies within the world, leading to a sense of exclusion, even the development of an intellectual underclass of sorts. Such hierarchies, where the production of ideas are limited to an academic, scholarly, technocratic, business class etc., surely leads to a type of Ressentiment, revitalising a master-slave dichotomy or at the very least a more visceral resentment much akin to that suggested by Marx et al. (1992). Perhaps we are already seeing such resentment becoming established with the rise of fake news, pseudoscience (despite the vast development of scientific knowledge/technology) and

17 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

tribalism with the gargantuan echo chambers arising from social media platforms (Yoo, 2017) that may be indicative of a knowledge revolution, albeit a rather vacuous and somewhat destructive type.

Disclaimer From a “Wanna Be” intuit

Despite my general lack, perhaps ironically, I am very aware of my limitations, and that does, to a notable degree, allow me the humility to offer a disclaimer of sorts on writing this article. Despite the egoistic ramblings formed from my own hubris, with my idleness and paucity of reading on any given subject, I am aware that whatever I may say, has likely been said before, and undoubtedly in a more eloquent, accurate, and coherent manner. It is certainly not my intention to unknowingly plagiarise other people’s ideas, only reveal my silent moments of independent thought, formed from the little that I have discovered—albeit, in a far more unconscious manner. Information randomly collected and stored in the subconscious where it may ferment and transform into something a bit more wholesome.

If this be the case, that I am regurgitating already established, well-formed ideas, I offer my sincerest apologies, although there may well be value in such opinion pieces that openly admit and expose their limitations. Perhaps rather controversially, I think that this might offer a novel form of research or scholarly contribution. In essence, by publishing an opinion piece that has not been afforded adequate research time, you might allow others to do the research for you. Following the publication of any given article/work, the readership (or “consumership” depending on the platform) might be able to direct you to the seminal works/figures, research, literature that is pertinent to your article that allows for further elaboration or correction, that may be more succinct and comprehensive. Propositional Dynamic Collaborative Enquiry might describe such an academic writing method and would be notably different to researched articles that are subject to critique and analysis following publication, particularly due to the intent and transparency of the author whom has clearly stated from the beginning the nature of the article (being conjecture built on intuitive assumptions). Such opinion based writing that is expecting scholarly input post-publication, and may then be defined as:

“Intuitive conjecture, formed with a transparent air of knowledge agnosticism, humbly awaiting clarification and development from those that have supplementary, robust or researched knowledge.” (Crowdfunding is perhaps somewhat analogous to this method of enquiry, but instead of requesting funds you are essentially requesting knowledge/information).

There may well be something in this union/tension of the subjective and the objective, with an air of altruistic scholarship, that provides a “system for synthesis” of sorts, with such a definition offering the development of genuine humility-based enquiry, that steers away, and is in contrast to, the oft arrogant opinion pieces espoused by the many propagandists with hidden agendas or proponents and peddlers of fake news and misinformation. At the very least we might suggest that conjecture arising from somewhere within, rather than from laborious hours of comprehensive reading might imply that people have the capacity to simultaneously realise a knowledge that permeates all existence, awaiting random folk (like me) to make sense of the brilliant miracle that is life. Such random manifestations of knowledge within the individual may not, in fact, be random but arise in a non-local fashion from the collective ideas being born within our species over millennia, in a fashion not too dissimilar to those explored by Sheldrake (2009) in his conception of evolution, that utilises Morphic Fields.

18 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

The Big Five and/or Fear Types?

In trying to make sense of the world, humans clearly have a need to classify all things, including human behaviour (Everitt et al., 2011) and akin to the known and well established big-five personality traits (Goldberg, 1990), consisting of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism, I posit that it may be possible to organize human fear traits into certain “Fear Types.”

Perhaps in keeping with the meme or soundbite generation, in a rather unashamed, pseudoscientific fashion, I have coined a term that is more appealing and catchy than fear types. Utilising my genius (tongue firmly in cheek), fear types then becomes Fearotypes. Academics within the scientific or philosophic literature (even within the emerging fields of Fearology/Fearism) may have already coined such a term, however, on my provisional searches on Google (the great academic search monolith) I did not find such a term, and will therefore risk its usage and for now claim it as my own.

I think it important to state that in my limited musings on the subject of fear, in the chronology of ideas, this concept of fearotypes comes a lot later than other ideas that I have been considering for further exploration and development; however I felt that this may actually be the most original insight at present on my emerging interest in fear and also be of interest to the layperson.

A Brief Interlude: A New Trichotomy?

Before discussing my thoughts on Fearotypes, I should highlight an idea that I would like to develop in the future to gauge interest of the readership, that may offer provisional justification for future exploration, and may indeed prove to be an important concept in my developing understanding on fear. Furthermore, this idea has only recently arisen in my mind wanderings, and although very raw, does give some background, context and intuitive insight into some of my current beliefs on the subject of fear, and may help to explain some of the behaviours/ responses observed within the different fearotypes that I shall discuss.

The idea being considered imagines that fear may very well be part of a fundamental trichotomy, akin to those understood by esoteric enquiries of the past, that emphasized the importance of numbers and geometry (Hall, 2003; Bentley, 2016), particularly the number three which has been represented throughout history in various trichotomies such as the Holy Trinity, Plato’s Tripartite Theory of the Soul (Barney, Brennan & Brittain, 2014) and Freud’s conception of the psyche with the Id, Ego and the Super Ego (Freud, 2001) to name but a few.

Perhaps an even simpler expression of the importance and prevalence of the number three, is in the Positive, Negative, and Neutral divisions acknowledged within nature and science. It is within this framework that I intuit we may be able to view fear as part of an important trichotomy (see Figure 1) representing a complex interplay…a tension and movement that may offer profound insight and explanations into human behaviour (and potentially other forms of life). Although extremely early in my hypothesising, I provisionally intuit the forces of this trichotomy to be the Law of Attraction (Positive), Arousal/Attention/Awareness/?Ascension (Neutral) and Fear (Negative).

19 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Law of Attraction (LOA) – Arousal/Attention/Awareness/?Ascension

Positive (AAAA) – Neutral

Fear – Negative

Figure 1 Trichotomy

This is a very recent thought arising from my musings, shaped by my general exploration on fearotypes and my current (basic) understanding of the concept of fear, but also following somewhat random conversations with others when gently (albeit opportunistically) introducing (in day to day discourse) the idea that fear underpins all life. I remember that one such person responded with clear disdain at this thought, and communicated their own subjective view point, stating quite simply that they believed “life” to be the driving force behind all things. I must admit that I was thrown by this statement, and realised that even in these early discussions I would be challenged (which I thought was brilliant). Immediately I conceded that this view was intuitively just as reasonable as my conception of fear, and decided to include the Law of Attraction (LOA) as a general principle, and not to be confused by that discussed by Byrne (2006) and shortly after (to intuitively build a trichotomy) the neutral force with Arousal/ Attention/Awareness/ ?Ascension (AAAA), to consolidate this notion of all things moving toward life. This is the beauty of a humble approach to enquiry. You are willing to concede, or drastically edit, or even remove facets of your conceptions. Humility allows for a degree of detachment, despite it being very easy to view your ideas…born from serious contemplative labour, as a type of mystical offspring.

I readily acknowledge that the trichotomy (Figure 1) clearly requires much more development, but this, as with everything in this article, will likely mature over time. I cannot even decide at this point if I shall keep my current muddled conception of the Neutral Force, however there is an appeal for all four terms to remain, because they do appear, in some ways to refer an intuitive progression or evolution of consciousness observed in living organisms.

On Scant Definitions

It is important to highlight that to allow my ruminations to be more honestly captured, I will be using my own rather simplistic definition of fear, although definitions of fear are clearly not simple (Fisher 2012b). It is perhaps a little bit disingenuous to avoid lengthy discussions on definitions of fear that could easily take an extensive essay, treatise or lengthy books to offer adequate attention, particularly if we introduce arguments of a postmodern flavour to explore fear as a social construct; however to save time and reflect openly my current views, I will be strategically defining fear as: That within (us) that leads away from harm and/or annihilation.

20 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

From this definition one might also gravitate toward a certain understanding and definition (within the context of the aforementioned trichotomy) of the “Law of Attraction” (LOA) to be: That within (us) that leads us toward life and transcendence”.

(The concept of transcendence is yet another area that will be discussed at length elsewhere and in future articles, although this will still be an important element of discussion in relation to the exploration of fearotypes).

A unified definition that establishes the holistic purpose of fear, the LOA and also the neutral force (AAAA) might be described as:

That which promotes the survival/replication of complex biological molecules.

Finally, to expand on this to include a “spiritual” domain, I would argue that consciousness is absolutely necessary in this definition and might look like:

That which promotes the survival/replication of complex biological molecules and moves toward ever increasing complexity, consciousness and transcendence.

Fight-Flight and Freeze: Existential Fear Responses?

As any human can attest, we can all respond to fear in a variety of different ways. In developing the concept of fearotypes, I began by considering this within the context of the classic, generally accepted physiological process, The Stress Response, often expressed as “fight or flight” since its inception (Canon, 1929). It is a good example of an idea that has held popularity and yet is continually developing, with the addition of freeze (Jarvik and Russell, 1979), and thus the reordering of the fear response to “Freeze, flight, freeze” (Bracha et al., 2004) and yet more responses being considered that include fright and feint (Bracha, 2004); and from a more feminist perspective tend and befriend (Taylor et al. 2000).

Building on this reputable theme, in my subjective synthesising of such Ideas, I have surmised that there may well be more than the established responses and more recently accepted stress responses as mentioned (I am sure that others also have their own view on what responses humans enact with stress or fear stimuli). Such notions obviously need further development, but again for time’s sake and to allow one’s ideas to wander a little, I controversially do away with the term “stress response” opting to simply use the term “fear response” to develop my own ideas in this area of study. I collectively term these responses as; Existential Fear Responses (EFR’s) and suggest that the classic responses, along with my newly hypothesised responses, can be broken up into first order and second order responses to reflect the urgency of each action/trait. The different EFR’s might therefore include:

Existential Fear Responses (EFR’s):

First Order Responses – Immediate response Known and Accepted responses: Freeze, Flight, Fight, Fright Hypothesised: Feint, Fearlessness – As hypothesised by Fisher (2010)

Second Order Responses – Imminent response

21 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Friend – I use this term simply for aesthetics, and might largely be categorized within the domain of the generally established Tend and Befriend response. To tend and befriend is arguably an essential component (as a social animal) to form alliances for protection, creative unions, developing/fulfilling common goals, amongst many other advantages that perhaps includes the of exchange of unconditional feedback on our behaviour, and to some degree our very being.

My Hypothesised Responses to Fear: 7 F’s

Force – Dominate/seek power over others. This might be in the moment or over time. I would suggest that fight is often preceded with dominance displays.

Forage – To gather essential resources

Fornicate – In this case to pass on genes

Feel/Fulfil – Seek out sensation/pleasure/satiation (this might be, but is not exclusively related to forage and fornicate)

Formulate –Problem solving response. We do not always run away, or exhibit the standard responses; often we will be actively problem solving. Perhaps we climb a tree, grab a rock, call for help. In my view, problem solving for a human is often inseparable from the fight, flight freeze response. It might actually be argued that this should be promoted to a first order response.

Fact Find – Representing human’s natural curiosity that paradoxically opposes the fleeing response. Rather than taking flight, it can be beneficial for survival to investigate if an unknown stimulus (a rustle in the bushes, a strange sound in the distance for example) may be advantageous to survival or indeed a threat.

Forgo – In my view, my most controversial idea (relating to EFR’s) that will need much further exploration. This essentially represents humans search for higher meaning and ability to forgo the base, “animalistic” even “mechanistic” tendencies. A person forgoes the usual fear response to move toward a transcendent potential, to unlock the spiritual domain perhaps. This may also be classified or be encompassed within the concept of “fearlessness” that Fisher (2010) explores. In fact, it may well be that fearlessness will also incorporate and serve as an umbrella term for the domains of forgo, fact find, formulate and even friend.

It is important to point out that if there be credibility in the future to my hypothesizing, I would suggest that these are the core fear responses that humans experience and will likely be the result of the complex interactions with the other forces within the aforementioned trichotomy (i.e., Fear, LOA, AAA).

As an incredibly simple example of this, I might suggest that although Fact Find represented by the emotion curiosity is a fear response, the LOA may also be a force acting on this (I suggest that the neutral force AAAA is a necessary base for all reactions, without of course there can be no movement, no response at all). Perhaps a more obvious example of the fusion of the aforementioned forces is between the LOA and fear represented within the Fornicate response. The fear arising from not being and the desire for immortality leads to sexual reproduction (Fornicate) that allows for the passing on and the replication and combining of genes (LOA). Fear and LOA working simultaneously in this regard might explain why desire and lust or the need for companionship are some of the most powerful of human emotions and needs.

22 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

On Emotion

Much of my discourse is admittedly built on one assumptions after another. This clearly leads to the increased risk that any conclusions are likely to be invalid;, however sometimes where there is opportunity for important truths to surface, the risk can worth taking, and we must not allow the fear of failure to stifle any emergent creativity. Besides, when intuiting such ideas, you will invariably become lost in a maze filled with dead ends…this is the nature of subjectivity and uncertainty, particularly when no detailed map is at hand to help guide you, and perhaps explains why I have begun identifying myself as a type of “knowledge agnostic” working by a simple precept; “Remain perpetually agnostic (to truth claims), whilst searching endlessly for absolute truth.” I expose my layered assumptions simply because, to develop this idea of fearotypes via the avenue of the EFR’s, I was required to also hypothesize or intuit a link between EFR’s and emotion, suggesting that for each EFR’s that I have highlighted, a corresponding set of emotions also arise.

In yet another discussion for a future time, I will be exploring the idea that fear is the single…or amongst a very small set of arch, primary or proto- emotions that gave rise to the other emotions. To give a simple example of this, I would suggest that fear is a higher order emotion that gave rise to anger and anxiety (amongst many others). I would like in the future to develop a type of phylogenetic tree for emotions (perhaps this has already been done), with fear at the apex of such a tree. I do feel that it is likely that the LOA and even the neutral force (AAAA) will also give rise to constituent emotions, but I shall not elaborate at this time, other than suggest, that I do feel a certain elegance to such hypothetical emotion genealogies.

This discussion on the relationship between fear responses and emotions is an important one, because I suggest that the emotions act as the bridge or transition from fear responses to fearotypes, or at least, the emotions serve as indicators to the corresponding fear response.

Essentially, I am proposing that people will often exhibit more readily certain emotions (that correspond to fear responses and subsequent behaviours), which might highlight a person’s fearotype. Classifying emotion (and subsequent behaviour) within the framework of fear responses might look something like what is represented in Table 1. (only a few examples are given due to the lack of development on this idea at time of writing).

Table 1 Classifying Emotion(s) & Fear Responses

Fear Emotion Observed Behaviour, personality Response Flight Anxiety, disgust* Avoidance, servitude, introversion Fight Anger, disgust* Aggression, dominance, narcissism Fornicate Desire, lust Flirtation, extraversion Forage Greed, curiosity Hard working, industrious Formulate Curiosity Planning, organised Friend Love, empathy Altruism, agreeableness *I think there is room to view some emotions as a hybrids born of multiple emotions, in the above case disgust might be a hybrid of both anger and anxiety. To give another example I might suggest that envy is the hybrid emotion of anger and desire (born from the foraging and fight response).

23 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

A simple example of the link between fear responses and emotion in day-to-day life might be in the recognition of a person whom is quick to anger. Such anger might be indicative of a higher propensity for the fight response with subsequent behaviour likely appearing in dominance displays or aggression. Someone whom is far more passive, that minimises conflict by being agreeable or even avoidant might indicate a greater amount of the freeze or flight response. A person whom exhibits greed or excessive wealth may be overrepresented by the foraging response, whilst a person whom gives readily to charity may be demonstrating the friend or even the forgo response.

I have oversimplified all of the above examples (the entire article for that matter) to make it far more understandable and therefore accessible to the many, but also due to the very fact that all these ideas are still in their earliest conception (that I have continuously highlighted). At the very least, it is necessary to understand the basics of what I infer, because it is in the various combinations and the degrees in which the fear responses present (EFR’s) in a person (that includes corresponding emotions) that allows for the development of the different fearotypes.

Justifications, Motivations and Classifications

Before introducing the fearotypes, I think a brief explanation is necessary to understand why I think it is important to make classifications relating to fear. For as long as I can remember, with my limited tools of knowing, I have tried to make sense of the world, asking myself: why are people the way they are?, why do we do what we do? And a multitude of other questions, particularly in relation to the suffering that I see, the hardships and challenges faced by all peoples throughout the ages, and of course the often destructive impact we have had on the world and other species.

“I felt that fear is a recognisable, pervasive concept and therefore an excellent concept to build a revolution around, as opposed to free will.”

With my genuine care for others and the world, I have longed for a revolution, so that we might, as a species begin to realise our incredible positive potential. I have often employed the endless regress (in a childlike fashion) to attempt to understand the problems we create, concluding for some time, that a lack of free will is central to this. I should highlight, that at the heart of my core beliefs, I generally view humans to lack free will and agency, but I am not one to suggest that free will cannot be cultivated or improved. I have struggled to see how I might initiate a revolution based on this premise; that humans’ lack free will, especially given its complexity as a philosophical concept. Certainly there is evidence that many have tried with eastern spiritual practices that arguably attempt to raise the self-awareness of individuals with the introduction of meditative practices and the like.

Delving further, I became interested in causality and self-organisation, that inevitably led to attempts to understand how matter and life could arise from inorganic matter, how RNA and DNA replicate. I began considering that self-organisation, preceded molecular replication that eventually gave rise to a system of “survival.” From this, I began to view fear as a significant emergent property of that mechanism, of that “survival instinct” (fear as an emergent property is yet another musing for the future). I speculated that if fear thus became a ubiquitous and fundamental part of this self-organising process… the heart of our evolution, then could it not be viewed as the lowest common denominator to our subsequent behaviours? A primary causal agent observed in the brilliant yet chequered history of humankind?

24 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

In these early musings, I believed that fear emerged early in this self-organising process, but I have, as alluded to, conceded that other forces were surely at play (hence the acceptance of LOA, AAAA), nonetheless, intuitively, I felt that fear is a recognisable, pervasive concept and therefore an excellent concept to build a revolution around, as opposed to free will. I thought that even if we could get those individuals that are often angry, aggressive and volatile, greedy and self-centred to start recognising that fear is at the heart of such responses, we might yet make the world a better place, we might yet inspire them to no longer succumb to the more destructive aspects of fear, that I suggest stifles human development, progression and dare I say transcendence.

In my imaginings (and losing all sense of reality), I visualised approaching drug dealers, building rapport and asking questions, particularly; What drives you? The response from such an exchange might be implied or overtly affirmed, that having an identity, status, money, power, survival, drives their actions. In that fictional exchange, I imagined that I would say in a rather melodramatic fashion, “no…it is fear that drives you” offering a mighty, triumphant and life changing revelation. Even if this was rejected and I found myself in a precarious situation (I do not advocate essentially calling a “gangster type” a coward), this insight; that fear drives us all, might, at least be something that any person, of any background or disposition might understand, might intuitively know deep down within their being and be able to readily contemplate such a notion.

Mass comprehension is very important to me. I do not want to disenchant or exclude those that cannot comprehend Kant or Nietzsche, cannot follow complex philosophical, scientific or scholarly knowledge. For many people to change, the message in my view must be simple. Fear might offer that ubiquity of thought, may be the lowest common denominator to build a united vision, a common purpose. Fear transcends the group loyalty found within politics or general life because it is in my view where all things arise, where all things begin.

And so I found the focus of a new revolution, to place fear (or fearlessness) at its heart, with three simple phases considered to overcome it; Highlighting, Fighting and Righting Fear Based Life.

It is undoubtedly very hard to change anything, any problem, when we are not aware of it. I echo the sentiment of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky (Ouspensky, 2001) that were trying to raise self-consciousness, self- remembering, to attain free will, suggesting in a brilliantly simple way, that free will cannot be acquired until you have realised that you do not have it. I believe that to overcome fear, we must first realise that fear governs much of what we do, that it reflects much of what we are. To begin the first phase of the revolution; to highlight fear based life, we must find a method of bringing this to the forefront of our minds. A simple classification system in the form of fearotypes might offer this. This contribution; if it be so, is perhaps the first step that I have taken to overtly demonstrate my own attempts to utilise a fearologist’s (Fisher, 2010) lens to explain human behaviour.

I suggest that once we can observe the fearotypes a person may gravitate towards, we might begin to see the true scale of the fear problem. We might be able to be open and honest about who we are and importantly why we are the way we are. Once our fear tendencies are fully exposed to ourselves and each other, we may begin the process of seeing whom we need to develop, support and even challenge.

With some regret, I posit that not all those that lean toward a certain fearotype will have the same capacity or motivation to change, and to overcome the negative fear traits within them. As a brief aside, let me be clear, I do believe that fear can be both constructive and destructive; evolution is clearly evidence for the necessity or utility of it, and whilst others have explored the binary nature of fear at

25 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

length (Subba, 2014), this revolution hopes to focus largely on raising awareness about the pervasive nature of fear in human life/history and to eventually challenge and correct the destructive and negative effects of fear.

Following on from claims of utility and relative destructiveness, a question naturally arises; What makes them so? Certainly a lack of the flight response in certain instances would be unhelpful, even dangerous; however too much of the flight response is damaging, and is arguably no better represented than the high prevalence of anxiety disorders in the world (Baxter et al. 2014). The statistics that highlight the issue of anxiety alone, ought to be a clear indication of the extent of the fear problem, but then we could also mention the violent crime statistics… wars even, that clearly represent the fight response in overdrive (and to a degree the force response). With all this said, we cannot get away from the fact that the fear responses and subsequent emotions are present due to the advantages they have bestowed upon us within the concept of evolution.

The trouble that I see, with human evolution, is that much of our destructive habits are often masked by the areas where we do exhibit brilliance, such as our innovation, genius and ability to organize when required. Our amazing ability to adapt and problem solve, often mitigates the destructive effects of fear, and so it has become ingrained in our psyche to accept such fear response extremities in daily life. Considering such notions, fear responses might be better viewed on certain continuums, that may be judged, rated or scored according to the level of relative utility or destructiveness that arises from said responses. Such Fear Response Continuums (FRC’s) might clearly represent that too much, or too little of a fear response becomes destructive, highlighting an optimal range for the fear responses (see Figure 2).

On much contemplation on this idea of continuums, I would suggest that commonsensically some of the fear responses require different continuums. To offer an example and as previously stated, it might be suggested that an excess of the fight response would be generally destructive, whilst an excess of the friend response would generally not, and would in fact be advantageous.

26 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Figure 2 Fear Response Continuum: Constructive & Destructive

The diagrammatic representations in Figure 2 (FRC’s), perhaps demonstrate with more clarity the potential utility or destructiveness of the fear responses (and subsequent emotions) which is important when going forward with the development of fearotypes, because it is in the understanding of the balance between the different fearotypes that the nature of the destructiveness may become more evident (Active or Passive).

Fearotypes

Akin to the standard model of particle physics that has grown with each new discovery, or even the well- established “big five personality types” that have been adapted with continued research and the development of the ideas (DeYoung, Quilty & Peterson, 2007); so I would also expect evolution to occur with fearotypes (if of course this concept ever becomes established or at all credible).

I am not precious and territorial in relation to my ideas, and wholly expect anything that I birth to mature with a degree of independence from myself, and this is even more likely, given the fact that as I continue to point out, I am merely rampaging at the moat of a multi-layered ideas castle, that will require a notable siege to uncover any treasures, and I am a man, not a warlord or conqueror, so all things will come via instinct and intuition.

And so, from my limited base of enquiry, I initially conceived of eight different Fearotypes. I am still in the process of establishing terms/names that best represent their nature, but by and large, I have been drawn to these descriptive classifications at present;

The Rebel, The Apostle, The Devoted, The Broken, The Impotent, The Apathetic,

27 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

The Hopeless/Helpless The Transcendent.

These fearotypes describe a generalised personality response to fear that are essentially derived from the conglomeration of the different fear responses (EFR’s) and their constituent emotions.

To reiterate; these classifications largely arose to try and make sense of the world, trying to understand in a far simpler way, why people behave the way they do, why do some people seek extreme wealth?, whilst others will give away a great deal of theirs to charity?, why do some people focus on their careers, or a religion?, whilst some are happy to play computer games?, why are some people volatile and deal drugs or engage in other illegal activity?, whilst others put their own life on the line to protect strangers? Why do we rarely become activists, despite massive issues such as global warming, poverty, inequality, war etc.? This is clearly not an exhaustive list. I could ask such questions all day every day. Essentially one of the purposes of fearotypes is to offer some explanations as to why people are willing, unwilling, able and unable to combat fear or utilise or promote the best aspects of it, or dare I say, even use fear for their own insidious ends.

To introduce the fearotypes in a (hopefully) comprehensible manner, I have created some basic “top trumpsesque” profiles that offer a brief description of the fearotypes and how they might appear in general life, that incorporate the Existential Fear Responses (EFR’s) and subsequent Fear Response Continuums (FRC’s). Creating visuals that include radar diagrams with hypothetical values may help the reader understand the relative areas of utility or destructiveness evident within fearotypes that I propose. Without extensive research, all imagined data inputs, will clearly be unable to represent any accuracy at this time, but will illustrate the point, which is simply that; it might be suggested that people score differently in their EFR’s, and the different combinations of the EFR’s might go some way to represent a particular fearotype.

It is important to note, that I do not suggest fearotypes to be fixed, hypothesizing that each person may actually incorporate all the different fearotypes to a greater or lesser degree, oscillating within different contexts, but I suggest that it is the most commonly adopted or dominant fearotypes that will likely offer a greater insight into the presenting or dominant nature of the person.

Fearotypes: Descriptions

The Apostle (of destructive Fear)

The Apostle (Figure 3). May also be known as the purveyor of destructive fear. Rather than challenge and improve the fear problem, people exhibiting high levels of the Force, Fight and Forage response will adopt or increase fear at the detriment of others/the world. Traits may include a distinct lack of empathy with narcissistic and even psycho/sociopathic tendencies. The people with these traits/responses may consciously or unconsciously use fear for their own ends (though I would argue mostly unconsciously), whether this be through the acquisition of resources to gain excessive or extreme wealth (high forage response), or through power and dominion over others (high force response) that can also be by overtly or covertly aggressive means (high fight response). These people likely drive pollution, global warming and conflict on the planet, and do not strive innately for equality, often exploiting others. They might appear plausible and competent due to high levels of the formulate and fact find response but will not truly look to innovation to improve the world, only their own needs and agendas. The Apostle is likely able

28 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

to understand or have the capacity to understand many things, but will prefer to use intellect (the fact find and formulate response) to dominate those around them via manipulation, misinformation, propaganda or the creation of oppressive systems.

Freeze Friend 100 100 Force 80 Flight 80 60 60 40 40 Feel/Fulfil 20 Fight 20 0 Forgo 0 Formulate

Forage Fright

Fornicate Feint Fact Find

Figure 3 The Apostle Radius

The Broken

The Broken (Figure 4) are people whom consistently struggle with life (that is pervasive in all areas) and may score high in all the first order responses but low in the second order responses. Often the fear responses demonstrated are a result of challenging and difficult and often traumatic life experiences (the destructive aspects of fear based life). People exhibiting such fear responses likely become easily hyper- aroused or dejected. With a need for human contact, the Broken will often be attracted to one another and will often be sensation/pleasure seekers (high Feel/fulfil response) to avoid reality, succumbing to substance misuse. They may have little ability to overcome such difficulties, scoring low in ability to problem solve or check facts (low in formulate and fact find response).

Freeze Friend 100 100 Force 80 Flight 80 60 60 40 40 Feel/Fulfil 20 Fight 20 0 Forgo 0 Formulate

Forage Fright

Fornicate Feint Fact Find

Figure 4 The Broken Radius

29 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

The Impotent

The Impotent (Figure 5), due to lower levels of cognitive development are unable to be aware of the issue of fear (in the holistic existential sense). I would suggest that due to this inability to form complexity surrounding fear, these people will often express fear in the most authentic or “visceral” way. This group will be a small adult group that will require support from others to develop areas that they require growth. Most young children under a certain age will be in this category until developing past a certain point of cognition.

Freeze Friend 100 100 Force 80 Flight 80 60 60 40 40 Feel/Fulfil 20 Fight 20 0 Forgo 0 Formulate

Forage Fright

Fornicate Feint Fact Find

Figure 5 The Impotent Radius

The Devoted

A classic behavioural response to fear is to be avoidant (Flight response) and this can take many different forms (including distraction). I suggest that the Devoted (Figure 6) are a group that are primarily avoidant to the fear problem, and account for a large population of people. People exhibiting high Flight responses will place a special emphasis on certain aspects of their life as an avoidant strategy… a distraction to their reality. To avoid or distract (I did consider naming this fearotype the distracted), they become devoted to something. This might be a career, to their family, to a religion/belief, to a cause, to material wealth etc. Although some of the elements that are mentioned might be viewed as positive (devoted to children), I would argue that without acknowledging the existential trappings, and huge significance of fear, people become insular, leading to the holistic well-being of humanity being compromised, and suffering. This might offer an explanation as to why people avoid addressing the vast problems in the world, to essentially “turn a blind eye.” I would argue that this fearotype is where most people reside. This will likely not be a popular notion, because an avoidant response (that includes our shame for not overcoming aspects of life that are destructively manifest by fear) is denial. If this group decided to face fear, to develop their second order fear responses (Friend, Formulate, Fact Find, Forgo), they might change the world within a generation. Ego is likely relatively high in this group and may explain the rise of individualism, particularly in “occidental mandom”.

30 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Freeze Friend 100 100 Force 80 Flight 80 60 60 40 40 Feel/Fulfil 20 Fight 20 0 Forgo 0 Formulate

Forage Fright

Fornicate Feint Fact Find

Figure 6 The Devoted Radius

The Apathetic

The Apathetic (Figure 7) might represent another notably avoidant type, although with a stronger Freeze response that leads to apathy. With less emphasis on the Flight Response, the apathetic may not devote themselves to anything in particular, and appear to “make do” or “plod along” doing “just enough”. These people will likely be content with some of the basic pleasures of life, seek comfort and avoid drama, stress or challenging circumstances. Along with the devoted, this group may represent a large populous that may go some way to explain why so many in western countries show a lack of interest in the plight of their fellow human.

Freeze Friend 100 100 Force 80 Flight 80 60 60 40 40 Feel/Fulfil 20 Fight 20 0 Forgo 0 Formulate

Forage Fright

Fornicate Feint Fact Find

Figure 7 The Apathetic Radius

The Hopeless/Helpless

The Hopeless/Helpless (Figure 8) may appear much like the devoted or apathetic, particularly in a predominantly producer/consumer society, however this group may have an innate sense (or not), that humans, and life can be more, can lead to self-actualisation, demonstrating notable potential. Believing

31 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

in a higher purpose, whilst living in a society/world that diminishes opportunity for self-actualisation; people in this category become somewhat dejected by the scale of the task required to change society…the world, for the better. Rather than begin a revolution. With the unrest that they feel, the reality that they see, they become hopeless/helpless. This may be due to a low level of the Fight response. They want change, but cannot see how things can be different, and if they do see how things can be different, they believe that it is not possible to implement said change. I think that there are a lot more people in this category than may originally be conceived, manifesting at a very deep psychological level that they are unaware of. These people would likely be receptive to a revolution against fear based life (destructive elements), but require inspiration from a leader. Scoring high in the second order responses, altruism, reason and compassion (as opposed to ego and individualism) are the natural tendency of this person, explaining perhaps why they become hopeless and helpless, due to the continuous observation of other people’s pain, suffering and struggle against the oppression that stifles people’s ability to self- actualise (that may be the first steps to transcendence).

Freeze Friend 100 100 Force 80 Flight 80 60 60 40 40 Feel/Fulfil 20 Fight 20 0 Forgo 0 Formulate

Forage Fright

Fornicate Feint Fact Find

Figure 8 The Hopeless/Helpless Radius

The Rebel

The Rebel (Figure 9) may represent a person whom is trying to combat the negative and destructive aspects of fear, trying to initiate a revolution, whether consciously or unconsciously. It is important to highlight that not every revolutionary figure, protester or general rebel would be placed in this classification, that I would suggest has to relate to the fear problem to be a fearotypical rebel. For example, a “general or standard rebel” might actually be classified as a “Devoted”, using protest, activism etc. as a form of distraction/avoidance to the fear problem. I would say that the purest type of “fear work” must include the acknowledgement that fear is a prime driver of human problems with the aim to combat/manage this, or at the least have an innate sense of this. The Rebel understands, or is beginning to understand the “fear problem”, and may be close to combating/managing fear whether directly or indirectly. Again, I would say that ego is an important factor that helps distinguish the standard rebel, from the “fearotypical” form and may reveal the traits found within the “devoted”. A person whom is mostly altruistic, and not serving their own ego by engaging in vanity projects will be doing true “fear/fearlessness work”. The fearotypical Rebel will in effect, uphold and champion the values of altruism.

32 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Freeze Friend 100 100 Force 80 Flight 80 60 60 40 40 Feel/Fulfil 20 Fight 20 0 Forgo 0 Formulate

Forage Fright

Fornicate Feint Fact Find

Figure 9 The Rebel Radius

The Transcendent

The Transcendent (Figure 10) is self-actualized/self-aware. A person whom has overcome or able to forgo their base “animal” instincts”, their fear responses (optimising them). Truly “human” rather than a “beast machine” (I use the term human as an ideal to strive for, as opposed to the commonly understood classification…an animal that has broken the bonds of a mechanistic existence that is not governed by internal biological drives, pre-dispositions or externalities that lead to reactive behaviour). The transcendent will truly “know thyself” and have self-mastery, utilising emotions to guide their judgement rather than be dictated by them. This individual will have unconditional compassion for others, understanding that people are mostly automata that lack free will because they are so heavily fear based.

Freeze Friend 100 100 Force 80 Flight 80 60 60 40 40 Feel/Fulfil 20 Fight 20 0 Forgo 0 Formulate

Forage Fright

Fornicate Feint Fact Find

Figure 10 The Transcendent Radius

33 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Problems with Classification Systems

Immediately one may find some obvious problems with this notion of different fearotypes. One might well ask where the classifications stop? and where do we draw the line to such arbitrary distinctions? Such questions cannot be answered in this paper, given the considerably intuitive and provisional musings offered here but to accentuate this point, that infers potentially infinite fearotypes, on writing this article, I inevitably began creating ever more fearotypes.

Here are three more fearotype examples:

The Hyper-Survivalist

The Hyper-Survivalist (Figure 11) may be those that score relatively high in all fear responses experiencing frequent anger, anxiety and desire, enjoying all forms of sensation or thrill seeking, such as drinking alcohol, or illicit substances (casually/functionally, but not addicted) and may even include promiscuity and excessive spending (above means). A consumer hedonist of sorts made all the more extreme in a culture that promotes excess. Learning certain practices that advocate self-mastery (such as meditation, yoga, education) might bring the fear responses closer to optimal ranges.

Freeze Friend 100 100 Force 80 Flight 80 60 60 40 40 Feel/Fulfil 20 Fight 20 0 Forgo 0 Formulate

Forage Fright

Fornicate Feint Fact Find

Figure 11 The Hyper-Survivalist Radius

The Agitated

The Agitated (Figure 12) might be those that score high in the Fight response, exhibiting anger on a regular basis. The agitated is aware that something within the world is not right, but instead of fighting fear, they become angry, directing this in areas that only worsen the fear problem. This group might be found in gangs or seen in angry mobs (for example, “football hooligans”). Such groups might be especially likely when they score high in the friend response, demonstrating significant loyalty to their “tribe”. With the right inspiration and leadership, the agitated might be transformed into the Rebel fearotype due to similar levels evident in the fear responses.

34 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Freeze Friend 100 100 Force 80 Flight 80 60 60 40 40 Feel/Fulfil 20 Fight 20 0 Forgo 0 Formulate

Forage Fright

Fornicate Feint Fact Find

Figure 12 The Agitated Radius

The Chaotic

The Chaotic (Figure 13) may be those with no clear fear response patterns with frequently fluctuating extremes.

Freeze Friend 100 100 Force Flight 80 80 60 60 40 40 Feel/Fulfil 20 Fight 20 0 Forgo 0 Formulate

Forage Fright

Fornicate Feint Fact Find

Figure 13 The Chaotic Radius

Added complexity on any given idea is surely inevitable. Along with the arrival of more fearotypes I suggest that the fearotypes discussed may well be subsets of “grand” Fearotypes or “arch” fearotypes, representing and being represented by a holarchic structure (Wholes within wholes), in keeping with what Koestler (1967) and later Wilber describes (2007) as holons (part/Whole). As alluded to, grand or arch fearotypes would require that people are not one fearotype all the time but switch from one fearotype to another dependent on context. People clearly present with all fearotypical traits arising from EFR’s at different times/places etc., which is perhaps an obvious consideration, given that all humans are subject to experiencing all emotions (that are associated with EFR’s). Despite this variability, as suggested, I posit that people will tend to exhibit a dominant fearotype and this may reveal the grand/arch fearotype.

35 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

I could likely spend many hours lost in a type of infinite regress, socially constructing numerous variations of the fearotypes. This could be readily criticised and easily argued to be problematic, but I am sure that defining the boundaries on any given classification, in all areas of enquiry (scientific or philosophical) have been fraught with as much difficulty. Furthermore, I would agree with such criticisms, and go as far to suggest that It may indeed be the case, that fearotypes are not necessary at all. On conceding such a point, as way of compromise, I would likely continue to promote the idea that there may be, at the very least, utility in making reference to the process that had led to the creation of fearotypes. Adopting and mapping the Fear Response Continuums (FRC’s), using radar charts might still be helpful in highlighting the notion that fear is at the forefront of human behaviour, the problem of the ages; that fear has shaped civilisation after civilisation; that fear will, if left unchallenged, lead to our ultimate demise.

Noticing or diagnosing a problem is crucial to overcoming it. This concept has been my bread and butter as a mental health nurse, with continued monitoring of change essential. The FRC’s would be helpful with this process. Once we are aware of the fear problem we can begin to understand the utility of it, and how to moderate fear, particularly when adopted in the right amounts. In this regard, it may well be that we only need the FRC’s.

All that has been discussed, simply serves to raise our conscious awareness, to the issues that have dominated human life, and once realised, serious “fear work” (or fearlessness work) might begin, engaging in a period of transition, away from the relative ignorance, denial or avoidance of our enslavement (to fear)… to hopefully avert possible future catastrophic outcomes and perhaps more importantly, begin to unlock our potentials, where a transcendent property…a spark, might be lying dormant, waiting to begin a golden age of human thought, of human “being.”

Fearotypes At-Large

Now if by a miracle, fearotypes were to be accepted as a concept worthy of further enquiry, I would speculate that some fearotypes will likely be more prevalent than others. A pie chart (that is extremely hypothetical, see Figure 14) reflecting the distributions of such fearotypes in a global population might be a helpful visual to contemplate this notion.

“This article lacks notable precision, with the ideas being birthed organically. This is essentially a stream of consciousness in written form.”

36 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

The Agitated The Apostle 10% 8%

The Hyper- Survivalist 8%

The The Devoted Transcendent 20% 1%

The Rebel 9%

The Broken The Hopeless/Helpess 7% 10%

The Impotent 12% The Apathetic 15%

Figure 14 Imagined Global Proportion of Fearotypes

Some points to consider on this are perhaps self-evident. For instance, the population of a fearotype would by no means represent the influence or impact each group has on the world. It might be argued for example that The Apostle holds much more power and influence than other fearotypes, by virtue of the fact that they often seek absolute dominion over others. Also I recognise that this is a very generic hypothetical chart, representing the global population, with notable variations likely within continents, regions, nations etc.

At this stage, I am not sure the intricacies matter, because throughout I have made it clear that this is all very provisional in nature, I intend only to highlight the potential utility of a chart in a yet unknown future, that might reveal areas of the population that would be open to a revolution against fear.

The Hopeless/Helpless, The Rebel, The Agitated for instance all show a desire for things to be different, whereas The Apostle is ‘happy’ to maintain the status quo. The Broken may lack resilience and be too lost

37 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

in their own chaos to begin change, whilst The Impotent may simply lack the tools in which to change. The Devoted may be even less likely to change, due to being numbed by comfort or absorbed in steadfast beliefs, whilst it may be self-evident that the apathetic would struggle to consider change. None of this conjecture is a given.

Considering population percentages with such a narrative becomes quite important when we consider this notion of fearotypical change or transformation. It allows a “fearologist” or a fear/fearlessness activist (it is quite clear I am still playing around with terms) to consider whom and how many can or cannot be inspired to create a new paradigm of fearlessness, of transcendence, to assist in the process of radical, revolutionary and constructive change, that will invariably include transforming their dominant fearotypes toward The Transcendent type.

Discussion

As it has been continuously stated, this article lacks notable precision, with the ideas being birthed organically. This is essentially a stream of consciousness in written form. Often, as a layperson, I am frustrated when I observe an end product, a fully formed concept when it is honed and finalised. This has led to a sense of exclusion from the process, of intellectual inferiority, because the evolution and development of ideas are not always overtly expressed. One naturally then assumes that the literature represents an unattainable level of genius and mystery, placing the brilliant scholars on pedestals or even a deific realm.

I remember that at school, any mathematical problem required you to show the teacher your workings, without which, one would receive a degree of disdain. I don’t know why ideas in general should not also work by a similar rule, that an idea should also be presented clearly, without ambiguity WITH its workings. And so this article is akin to showing the workings, akin to a new cake being first conceived with some provisional ingredients, flavours being considered, prior to the preparation, baking and decoration. Without the workings I do wonder if a type of alienation can be born, since surely all ideas are not free or independent of the influence of every human. All people are inspiring this work and so they should be part of this journey to uncover truth (if that indeed be the case).

“The Rebel in me wants people to know, to really believe, that we can all express ideas...”

Perhaps this scholarly divide with the common person can disenchant, reducing the likelihood that they may contribute to future endeavours, future conversations, and perhaps gives legitimacy to the rise of the burgeoning tribalistic echo chambers within social media. Certainly I have often felt somewhat demoralised and lacked the confidence to begin putting pen to paper for this very reason, feeling fraudulent to imagine that I have anything worthy to say. If, in this article I am not exhibiting fearlessness, I am at least identifying with The Chaotic, The Agitated within me, and as such, at this point, cannot present my ideas in any other manner, and to do so any differently, would be grossly inauthentic.

Hopefully the real value of this article, is in its relative simplicity, that the many might understand. This might be especially notable with the EFR’s. I suggest that at the very least, people may be familiar and be able to understand the language surrounding the EFRs (fight, flight freeze). This might be the entry point to discourse with the masses on their “slavery” and subjugation to fear.

38 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Whatever be the case, The Rebel in me wants people to know, to really believe, that we can all express ideas, that ideas arise within all of us, and we can all be fearless in communicating them, particularly when born from noble altruistic humility, that drives us to simply ask why?, why do we do what we do? Why, with so much capacity for love, with so much ingenuity is suffering still a thing?

From such musings a conclusion can never be born, only discussions that raise many more questions than answers, but I do not think this is a bad thing. In my view, we have stifled the creative contemplation, the natural infinite enquiry of our children by placing limitations on the brilliant questioning that often incorporates the simplicity of the what, how and why. Indeed, how many times do we prohibit a child whom answers why relentlessly, to each new answer that is offered? Invariably on being bombarded by such inquisitiveness, the adult becomes dismissive, often responding with something like, “not right now,” “because it is” or “because I said so.” Perhaps it is apathy, a lack of energy, being distracted by the trivialities of life, or even protecting one’s ego where simple childlike questions challenge our competency, our knowledge. Perhaps we restrict the child’s enquiry because it taps into our fear, that arises from not having the answers. Certainly not having answers from a survival perspective arguably makes us vulnerable so this would certainly make sense.

With no evident conclusions, I am simply trying to overcome my own limitations in writing my first ever article on this subject of fear, and over time, with more research, to overcome my own ignorance. My central aim in this article was to introduce some preliminary concepts that I have been contemplating that require significant development, with the future aim to help establish (with other budding fearologists) a potentially revolutionary hypothesis: That fear is the central problem of humanity, that fear is the main oppressor of human life, so much so, that I did seriously contemplate beginning this article with the sentence...

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of fear struggles.” [cf. Subba, 2014, Chpt. 24]

I have however opted to save this for any future tome, that by some miracle, might come to pass. An article, an essay, perhaps even a book…a serious effort of literary non-fiction, as opposed to this rather slapdash, garbled, opinion piece that my eleven-year-old daughter could likely have written with more clarity and zest. In such an opening statement, with my tongue firmly in cheek and perhaps with latent gall and controversy, I imply that the brilliant mind of Marx and people like him, with some lament do not go back enough in the causal chain to address the problems of humankind, and therefore lack a serious opportunity for revolution. They disembark from the endless regress train too early, missing the station that leads to the primary causal agents hindering humanity. If only we had not been stifled in our youth when asking why.

This is quite the claim, and I feel generally appalled with myself… that someone like me (that has significant intellectual limitations) has the impudence to offer such scant critiques of seminal thinkers. I would hope however, that people might consider, that behind such audacity, there is a sad desperation to do good in the world.

And so throwing caution to the wind, an exceptionally standard, run-of-the-mill fellow has attempted fearlessness to introduce Fearotypes, and other key concepts such as new Trichotomy, Existential Fear Responses and Fear Response Continuums in their infancy. Areas of thought, on the exploration of fear that others may find interesting, offering support for their continued development, and even assistance in the sign posting to relevant academic literature, to studies, to ideas that can make this exploration more

39 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

than just a delusional fancy, making it part of a process of Propositional Dynamic Collaborative Enquiry (there is invariably a term already “out there” that describes this better) and perhaps even a future scholarly work.

Perhaps knowing oneself, is to know how fear dictates our every move.

Criticism of this article and the ideas within will come readily and will be welcomed. As I have stated, fearotypes may not be necessary at all with value in simply understanding the FRC’s, that might at least allow for people to challenge one another and perhaps more importantly themselves; in keeping with the ancient dictum “know thyself.” Perhaps knowing oneself, is to know how fear dictates our every move. Any tool to help with this introspection will be valuable in diagnosing and ultimately resolving any issue.

I have been honest about the limitations of these musings...assumptions are not axioms, and I am not building premises on accepted truths, but on mere intuitions, some of which have not even been discussed within this article. I am omitting foundational hypotheticals that offer further “workings out.” For instance, I believe that to understand fear, it is necessary to look further back into the casual chain…into self-organisation… into evolution… to ask; what is survival? It is from these foundations that I intuit fear to be an extremely important emergent phenomenon of that complex self-organising process. I also believe it essential to have serious discussion on the nature of free will that indicates humans to be mere automata. I believe it necessary to highlight the possibility that there may be a transcendent spark within humanity…that there is a spiritual quality that offers an antidote of sorts, or even the pathway away from fear.

Omissions of fundamental intuitions leave this article somewhat lacking, but there are also technical problems that you cannot avoid considering in the future. How would the fearotypes be measured? What are the implications for suggesting that people are dictated to by fear?, that they are puppets to it… Anger? Despair? More apathy? (eye rolling would be a certainty methinks). Moreover, How then do we fight and right fear based life? Or perhaps to be more accurate, the destructive aspects of it?

With this being my stream of consciousness at a “beginning”, technicalities and complex explorations on potential solutions are not necessary at this point. I do think it is exciting to imagine that, much like the “big five personality traits” a future questionnaire could be developed that might be able to capture our fear responses, whilst resolutions to the problem of fear based life might be countless and diverse in nature. Inspired by age old wisdoms, philosophy and reason, I have considered some possible (and yet more provisional) tenets to help with the fear problem that may be developed at a later date:

• Be conscious, cultivate free will • Believe and trust in a/our transcendent potential • Overcome fear • See beauty in everything • Love your enemy • Develop empathy • Minimise your ego • Minimise the expression of negative emotion (particularly anger) • Pursue knowledge and understanding but remain humble and perpetually agnostic

40 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

• Hope (Verb) Tenets are useful as a simple reminder, a focal point. The tenets I have raised may actually merge or be removed in the future, but they may be a useful starting point. Tenets alone however will not be enough, I imagine alternative economical models to be discussed; resource based models for instance (Joseph, 2017). I believe educational reform to be essential in addressing the fear problem, requiring, critical thinking, self-development, self-awareness and mastery central to any curriculum. Invariably a gargantuan effort will be required for this to take place.

Thoughts such as these are a long way off from serious consideration, but hopefully will not be dismissed if change…a revolution is to arise. I think at this stage having a positive attitude, a desire to do good, in a humble and hopeful manner is more important than the intricacies of such transitions.

Whatever be the case, inspiration must be invoked…filled with hope and reason. Before any revolution can take place, fear must be highlighted, people must be aware of their own oppression, and must be convinced that overcoming this is worthwhile. Much has been expressed in this article, and this is only the beginning of a long process and journey. Perhaps the most important message to take away is a somewhat simple one; a rather mediocre person is desperate for things to be better…is willing to search within and without… to dedicate a lifetime to explore a profound hypothesis…to help others overcome arguably the central problem of humanity… the problem of fear based life. If such a mediocre person can take such action. Maybe we all can. References

Barney, R., Brennan, T. & Brittain, C. (2014) Introduction. In: Barney, R., Brennan, T. & Brittain, C. (eds.) Plato and the Divided Self. New York, Cambridge University Press. Baxter, A.J, Vos, T., Scott, K.M., Ferrari, A.J. & Whiteford, H.A. (2014) The global burden of anxiety disorders in 2010. Psychological Medicine. 44(11), 2363-2374. Bentley, P. (2016) The Invention of Numbers. London, Octopus Publishing Group. Bracha, H. S., Ralston, T. C., Matsukawa, J. M., Williams, A. E., & Bracha, A. S. (2004). Does "fight or flight" need updating? Psychosomatics: Journal of Consultation and Liaison Psychiatry. 45(5), 448-449. Bracha, H.S. (2004). Freeze, flight, fight, fright, faint: Adaptationist perspectives on the acute stress response spectrum. CNS Spectrums. 9(9), 679–685. Byrne, R. (2006) The Secret. New York, Atria Books. Canon, W.B. (1929) Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage: An Account of Recent Research into the Function of Emotional Excitement. 2nd edition. New York, Appleton- Century-Crofts. Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1994) Beyond intuition and instinct blindness: toward an evolutionary rigorous cognitive science. Cognition. 50, 41 – 77. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 Aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 93, 880-896. Everitt, B.S, Landau, S., Leese, M. & Stahl, D. (2011) Cluster Analysis. 5th Edition. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.

41 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Fisher, R.M. (2010) The World’s Fearlessness Teachings: A Critical Integral Approach to Fear Management/Education for the 21st Century. Lanham, University Press of America. Fisher, R.M. (2012a) An Introduction to an Epistemology of 'Fear': A Fearlessness Paradigm. Technical Paper No.2. Calgary, In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R.M. (2012b) An Introduction to Defining 'Fear': A Spectrum Approach. Technical Paper No.2. Calgary, In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R.M. & Subba, D. (2016) Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue. Xlibris. Freud, S. (2001) Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud: The Ego and the Id and Other Works. Volume 19. London, Vintage. Goldberg, L.R. (1990) An Alternative “Description of Personality”: The Big-Five Factor Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59 (6), 1216 – 1229. Hall, P.M. (2003) The Secret Teachings of all Ages. New York, Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin. Isenman, L. (2018) Understanding Intuition. London, Academic Press. Jarvik, L.F., Russell, D. (1979) Anxiety, Aging and the Third Emergency Reaction. Journal of Gerontology. 34 (2), 197-200. Joseph, P. (2017) The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression. Dallas. BenBella Books. Koestler, A. (1967) The Ghost in the Machine. London, Hutchinson and Co. Marx, K., Engels, F., Moore, S., & McLellan, D. (1992) The Communist manifesto. Oxford, Oxford University Press Noddings, N. & Shore, P.J. (1998) Awakening the Inner Eye: Intuition in Education. Troy, Educator’s International Press. Ouspensky, P.D. (2001) In Search of the Miraculous:. Boston, Mariner Books. Pilard, N. (2015) Jung and intuition: On the centrality of forms of intuition in Jungian and Post- Jungians. London: Karnac. Schumacher, E.F. (1978) A Guide for the Perplexed. New York, Harper Perennial. Sheldrake, R. (2009) A New Science of Life. London, Icon Books. Subba, D. (2014) Philosophy of Fearism: Life is Conducted, Directed and Controlled by the Fear. Australia: Xlibris. Taylor, S.E., Klein, L.C., Lewis, B.P., Gruenewald, T.L., Gurung, R.A.R. & Updegraff, J.A. (2000) Biobehavioral Responses to Stress in Females: Tend-and-Befriend, Not Fight-or- Flight. Psychological Review. 107 (3), 411-429. Wilber, K. (2007). The Integral Vision. Boston, Shambhala Publications. Yoo, J. (2007) Ideological Homophily and Echo Chamber Effect in Internet and Social Media. Student International Journal of Research. 4 (1), 1-7. Available from: http://www.sijr.ac/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Ideological-Homophily-and-Echo- Chamber-Effect.pdf [Accessed November 28th 2018]

Mark Eales Demonstrating an unparalleled level of compassion and empathy, with an innate desire to do good, Mark has worked in the Mental Health sector in the United Kingdom for over 20 years, caring and connecting with young people that exhibit the most complex needs and extreme challenging behaviour. He has

42 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

worked ceaselessly to promote the highest standards of care to improve the outcomes of these young people; however since becoming a professional, qualifying as a mental health nurse in 2014, Mark has become increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress, innovation and resources evident within mental health care provision generally. A lifelong sufferer of anxiety, and desperate for humans to unite and maximise the inherent potential within, and collectively as a species, for the past 2 years, he has been focusing on starting his own revolution, against what he believes to be the central issue faced by humanity –the destructive aspects of fear. Contact: [email protected] https://twitter.com/REVfearOLUTION https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7leEqD5aYzk&t=949s

****

43 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

fearlessness Jim Hanson USA

In the fabled face of death Ever blowing heroic breath Champions of terror management strut across the stage speak of Invictus masters of fate and captains of soul saviors of humanity and God

As if death had a human face As if deniers had a stalwart place An Olympia at which to vie A Valhalla at which to die.

As if there was a meaning of death As if there was more than the last breath A soul superordinated to arise and meet God A baby reincarnated to return and cry aloud.

Yet, fearless abiders take neither flight nor fight. What is is confirmed, neither denied nor affirmed. They do their best, with miles to go before they rest. As they always knew, death is neither old nor new.

[June 2016]

****

44 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Mythical Seductions & Diversions: A Dialogue, With Fear

- B. Maria Kumar & R. Michael Fisher India & Canada

[Note: The authors, Kumar (India) and Fisher (Canada) have been in dialogue on the topic of fear and fearlessness for over two years. Their first book together (with Desh Subba from Nepal, now living in Hong Kong) originated from a series of email dialogues, then published on the Fearlessness Movement ning, which were initiated by Fisher; see Fear, Law and Criminology: Critical Issues in Applying the Philosophy of Fearism, Xlibris 2018]

“Human beings all around are suffering from problems, troubles and even arrogance. The combination of all those problems, worries and arrogance is turning into a fear.” I pondered over her philosophical thought for a long time. But I could never figure it out. -Desh Subba (2015, p. 30)

RMF (R. Michael Fisher): Of late, I have been interested in asking critical questions about the best ways to shape future forms of fearology and fearism (a la Desh Subba et al.). In other words, if we are to create this global specialized study of fear (and fearlessness) that is ‘new,’ as we claim it is, what knowledge bases and varied modalities of consciousness, knowing and thinking and methodologies ought we draw upon to shape this study? Surely, the most obvious knowledge bases are Philosophy and Psychology disciplines—especially, we often draw upon the psychology of fear. However, I’ve been critical that the latter is too often dominating our fear imaginary, especially in the Western and “scientific” rationalist traditions for the last 100+ years. Some have said that current history is unfolding uniquely as a “Psychological Age” quite different than most of human history. This emphasis on psychology and its informing our understanding of ourselves and so much about how we understand reality and history, etc. has an upside and downside.

I’m thinking about the Psychological Age as explanatory, with its earlier historical roots in W. Enlightenment’s Age of Reason, as well, in that it was driven by and dominated by the need to conquer myth and superstition, explaining them away by this new paradigm and method of Reason plus Science. Rationality as the supposed new modality of knowledge that would take humanity out of the so-called ‘Dark Ages’ into the Light. Many thought that Reason was (is) the answer to overcoming fear in our historical past. Some Western Enlightenment critics, for e.g., like Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud and especially the archetypal psychologist James Hillman (1977), in Re-visioning Psychology, in contemporary times have said that “soul”

45 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

has been lost in the way modern psychology has developed and he argues that myth(ology) needs to be re-introduced into contemporary psychology in order to make our psychology discipline(s) healthier. I won’t jump into that now in detail but perhaps we can talk about this as our dialogue here progresses.

So, Maria, I have noticed you use at times mythic stories to complement your own writing, publishing and teaching. I’ve often wondered why you do that and wanted to give you space in our dialogue to explore that with me as an inquiry and as a place to understand your reasons for this mythic interest. I am curious to pursue an introductory discussion on the nature and role of myth(ology), the mythological imaginary and mythological psychology, if you will, and how these may contribute to more than only a scientific reason-based rationalism approach to fearology and fearism—and, contribute ultimately, as a holistic-integral approach in order to help us better understand and apply fear management on this planet. Of note, I have observed Desh Subba has not pursued as the forefront of his inquiry into fearism as analysis, the mythological dimension. Have you noticed this? He defines fearism as it “refers to the interpretation, analysis, application, investigation, research on the issue of fear or thesis, antithesis, and synthesis of fear” (Subba 2014, p. 331). This sounds to me like a very rationalistic analytic tradition he brings to fear study, that is, a modernist and W. Enlightenment approach. I also know he likes to use “story,” e.g., The Tribesman’s Journey to Fearless novel and “poetics” in his work; but off the top, I cannot think of him directly using “myth(ology).” I’ve wondered why? I also noticed that the Nigerian fearologists, especially Michael Eneyo in his new book Philosophy of Fear had referred to the Efik myths and folklore in a section in his book (Eneyo, 2018) as he is concerned about how to improve fear management in Africa. Interesting.

I think your recent book project in-progress Maria, India, Nation of Fear and Prejudice: Race of the Third Kind, co-authored with Desh Subba and myself, is a good example of applying a fearological perspective to the nation of India, its past, current and future development. Your notion of “Race of a Third Kind” in the sub-title is actually about a mythological theme from Ancient Greece, I believe. I have noticed you used mythic references also in your latest book with your daughter The Youth Don’t Cry, so now I am curious to find out why you see myth as so important.

So, I have two starting questions: (1) could you begin to tell me and our audience about all the ways in your writing projects so far that you have used myth and/or folk tales, etc.; provide us with concrete examples from your works and, (2) tell us about why you have done this and where your interest in myth(ology) began in your own autobiography and studies?

BMK (B. Maria Kumar): First, let me answer your second question about the “why” behind my interests. We in general, are brought up with do’s and don’ts as part of our socialisation process, during which parents, teachers and/or elders of the community educate, try to mould or shape us with the help of ethical fables, moral folk tales, etc. Mostly such stories are taken from traditional anecdotes, classical legends, ancient myths and/or religious sermons. Story telling makes a deep impact on our tender minds during childhood, which hardly withers away in due course once inculcation occurs. Depending upon the interest instilled or imbibed, children tend to get inclined further also to pursue listening to or learning more myths and legends.

46 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

It is a fact that mythical stories are woven in dramatic form via plots, imaginaries and imagination and fantasies. Dramatisation of the plots leaves readers affectively, cognitively and morally amazed, and at times awestruck.

“Myths are generally viewed by the people at first glance in such a manner that they are superstitious and fictional tales. True. But it is also true that myths, if not all but some, are discerning and stand by reason.” -B. Maria Kumar

RMF: And, at times terrified? Terrified humans are very susceptible to propaganda. Is there value in that kind of excitement through stories, myths, tales? There’s been a long debate in the West, at least, about the valuable and not-so-valuable uses and abuses of horrifying stories in the mythological and fairy tale genre, often rationalized as “morality” teaching, entertainment or “culture” or “fun” for bored life-styles. You may know, horrorology is very much a growth industry with many business ventures getting rich off of other people being made afraid. I think we as fearologists have to question this but also understand it critically as to its sources. I agree mythic genre literature and teachings may at times be useful in the evolution of human development.

BMK: Story-telling, poetics, reading, listening, performing, etc. can contribute to artistic, aesthetic appreciation and entertainment that also acts as means of relaxation as Edward Bellamy said, ‘If bread is the first necessity of life, recreation is a close second.’ And of course, certain ideas and deeper meanings and truths underlying myths, will also enlighten minds to employ or make use of in artistic, cultural and intellectual pursuits. That is, they advance the human potential.

The fact that I tried off and on to incorporate Greek or Roman mythical characters in my writings dates back to my student days. Stories with novelty or some unique background not only make an interesting read but also broaden the mental base for reception and quest of knowledge. One important beneficial aspect of learning from myths and legends is enhancement of vocabulary and language. Lera Boroditsky found in her research that words and language shape our thought processes. Apart from that, new terms, nomenclature and characters narrated in myths create new images and new ideas in our minds. They also help in explaining things in a more elaborate and interesting way. It was one of the factors that the scientists relied on mythological characters to a considerable extent to name their discoveries and inventions.

RMF: Can you give a few examples of how scientists have used myth for this naming and explaining their discoveries?

BMK: Yes, in a way, we can say that the understanding of myths and legends enriched scientific terminology as well as paved the way for the development of technology. The Renaissance, as the medieval cultural resurgence of Europe, laid foundations for the Industrial revolution. Renaissance focused on re-integrating parts of the cultures of Ancient Greece and Roman Empire. Michael Angelo excelled in painting and sculpture, portraying mythical gods and goddesses as a theme. Armed with the ideas of flying Pegasus and wax-winged Daedalus,

47 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Leonardo da Vinci envisaged the first drawing of an aeroplane. Niccolò Machiavelli took ideas from gods’ ways of controlling the mortal world and conceived fear-based rulership in his masterpiece, The Prince.

RMF: I have seen off and on postmodern critiques of “science” and “scientism” as ideology where critics have said that science is not all “facts” and “the truth” because it is self-claiming to be only “objective” reality that it describes. Some have argued, science discourse is another form of narrative truth-telling and use of metaphors, disguised myths, more than it is only “facts” and that that truth-telling with subjective interpretation, and its own historicity, some go as far to call it mythological or even mystical. This view sees science as a cultural product just like myths—a continuum of ways of knowing and creating knowledge and teaching and enculturation. Science, albeit, universal, is just the latest version of myths, they argue. I think there is some truth in that critique. I think this raises an interesting point in the Fear Studies discourses. Because today I have noticed that the “science of fear,” e.g., neurobiology of fear, and neuro-psychology of fear, are near completely dominating the current imaginary of fear. Not a good thing, if we are trying to achieve a holistic-integral view of fear and its management and transformation. Something seems insidiously left out of scientific discourse re: fear. I want to reclaim what is being lost, at least as a fearologist.

Less radical critiques have said the same about reason itself as necessarily and inevitably embedded in an ancient mythic memory system, and historical colorings and dramatisations, that comes from magic tracings of human culture and myths, etc. Point being, humans never likely can fully escape the primal mythological consciousness and stories and their influences, a point the eminent mythologist Joseph Campbell and the psychoanalyst Carl Jung made in their work over their life-times. And James Hillman, the contemporary archetypal depth psychoanalyst, is adamant that psychotherapy will only be truly effective when we get out of the dominating “humanism” of W. Enlightenment soul-denying interpretations of contemporary psychology and include the soul-psychology of the “gods” and “goddesses” of old that still work through us via archetypes and dreams, stories, literature, etc.—that is, an archetypal mythic psychology. Ken Wilber, the integral psychological theorist, argues the “mythic” deep structure of consciousness is foundational ontologically and ontogenetically in the development of human consciousness itself. Myth(ology) has a place, a role, and is essential to healthy human functioning. Of course, mythic consciousness and its stories can also be, under certain conditions and twists in development, oppressive and pathological and mis-guide human activity. But so can rational consciousness. I think transrational consciousness is the way to go where we include and transcend all the developmental levels of humanity and culture, including the magical, mythical pre-rational, with the later rational, post-trans-rational.

I have called all this pre-rational emphasis and critiques of these thinkers above as involving trance, altered states, dream, imagination, intuition, artistic processes and ultimately a deep connectivity with our ancient past, ‘living ancestor beings,’ and “stories” as the modality of the arational. The arational being just as important, arguably, as the rational in fear management/ education. Anyways, there’s a lot to learn about this dimension for modern humans. Certainly, contemporary Indigenous peoples have long known this connectivity and are quite at ease to blend magic-myth-science-arts in their traditional wisdom teachings. Since modernism’s birth in the post-Renaissance especially, there’s been a fragmentation and dissociation between these

48 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

diverse realms of knowing and myth often with religion got attacked by modern science and philosophy and psychology—to the point where “myth” is now a negative term as if meaning “false” truths and reality. I know you are speaking about something different than that view and connotation of myth.

BMK: It is true that the word myth in common parlance is nowadays used for a false notion. I would like to say that the generalisation of all mythical stories in the like manner may not hold to be of reasonable nature as the mathematician Kurt Gödel once said, “All generalisations, with possible exception of this one, are false.” The veracity of reason underlying a myth or any assumption for that matter, depends upon the contextual specifics of various situations. The space scientists first called Pluto, named after the Roman god of netherworld, a planet and with the advancement of space sciences later, it is no more considered part of the solar planetary family. Conversely, it is also possible that a theory which is rendered false now may turn out to be revalidated as true in future as happened many times in the scientific history of the world.

Here what I would like to stress is that the reason, no doubt, is very fundamental but at the same time, we have to take into consideration the reasonable ideas associated with a concept irrespective of the fact that there is prima facie reason which may be malevolent in that context or pseudoscience yet benevolent in that context because human life is not solely based on reason for its overall fulfilment.

RMF: Yes, that’s for sure!

BMK: Any thought in the mind, rational or irrational, which is alarming can upset the physiology of the body to the extent of causing a stroke or depression. When there’s a logical mind, so is there an emotional heart. In a holistic perspective, ideas that promote the good are essential requirements despite the fact whether they emerge from scientific inventions or from fictional myths and legends. The end of every human endeavour ought to be summum bonum, the highest good of humanity. Reason that is truth is useless if it results in destruction. The romantic poet William Blake said, “A truth that is told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent.”

Sometimes, dreams which we can’t infer as truth-based are pleasant and some are nightmarish. Though Freud interpreted dreams as the expressions of the unconscious mind, many scientists feel that there’s no rational basis behind the theory.

RMF: Freud is an interesting example of someone working in the ‘invisible’ realm of mind(s), unconscious, healing and the body—all together; and he was very interested in dreams, images, magic, myth, metaphors, art, the arational—but, unfortunately, he was a product of his time and gender, as he obsessively tried to turn subtle and unexplainable psychic phenomena into only scientific empirical bases, with laws. No rational analysis that tries to prove there is no rational basis behind the theories of Freud, is going to really prove anything, and least will they understand what Freud was actually doing with clients in the psychoanalytic intimate relational process. As a practicing therapist for decades, I know intimately that therapy work is not rational alone or can it be measured to fit rational standards of truth. I am sure if the rational-scientific researchers are ever to study my fearology work, they’d likely have a field day of attacking it as mostly undefendable nonsense, from a rational empiricist, that is biased, view they would take.

49 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

BMK: Yes Michael! Therapy is both a science and an art. For diagnostic purpose, it is the science to study disease but for treatment, it dons the role of art while healing. August Kekulé, a 19th century German scientist attributed the cause of his discovering the ring structure of benzene to his dreams. One day he dreamt of atoms, dancing around, linking to one another in a snake like fashion and finally biting its own tail. He woke up immediately, drew the sketch and declared the cyclical structure of benzene. His dream idea made him famous and he would have won a Nobel prize in chemistry had he not died prior to the commencement of Nobel prizes. Three of his students became Nobel laureates in later years.

Thus, the external story of a myth may be a concocted fiction but its inner essence may be a subset of reason, based on reasonable ideas. This is possible at least with some myths and legends. Recently, I read Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar’s article in the newspaper The Times of India on the necessity of being resistant to temptations. Often, the elected sovereign governments tend to succumb to the whims of unscrupulous political allies despite knowing full well that the decision would contribute to the destruction of the national economy and/or environmental safety etc. Such a tricky instance was very meaningfully ideated by him in reference to the episode of Odysseus’ encounter with the enchanting diabolical sirens in Homer’s Odyssey. Odysseus while on his return voyage ordered his sailors to plug their ears so as not to be able to hear the seductive songs of enticing sirens and got himself tied up to the ship mast so that he also couldn’t go to them. Swaminathan likened the mythical idea to the ideal character of a sovereign government so as to resist itself successfully the dubious temptations of vested interests.

Because today I have noticed that the “science of fear,” e.g., neurobiology of fear, and neuro-psychology of fear, are near completely dominating the current imaginary of fear. Not a good thing. -R. Michael Fisher

RMF: Yes, that’s an interesting story of how there is potential in mythic wisdom we’ve all inherited or may tap into today; but as you seem to be saying, there are some myths with more and some with less wisdom and insight for us to tap. We have to be discerning and experiment with using myths in diverse ways. There is no one simple application of them that fits all contexts, as you say.

BMK: As regards your first question, I will make a mention of certain concrete examples where mythical characters and concepts were used. Regarding the title of the latest book India, a Nation of Fear and Prejudice: Race of the Third Kind, with Fisher and Subba, I would like to clarify that the equation between the upper castes (or laterals as referred to in the book) and the backward and lower castes (or literals) alludes to that of Zeno’s tortoise and Achilles. Though the numerically strong literals comprising the vast majority of the Indian population with the largest vote bank and potential to seize political power like the mighty athlete Achilles, they stand nowhere in comparison to power-control authority of minority laterals, represented as the winged tortoise. Here, the wings of tortoise denote special privileges such as born status, landed property, ascribed higher rank in social hierarchy etc. Such privilege enables the laterals to fly past the literals thereby creating a huge gulf of inequality between the two. Zeno’s paradox has

50 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

stirred logical contradictions through the ages, and serves as a live mystery which is so incomprehensible for drawing solutions. It is here in this context that I have not only added the second race as a possible alternative to Zeno’s original first one but also created the third titular race with the incorporation of Achilles and tortoise as metaphors for the literals and the laterals respectively.

These three races differ qualitatively from one another in terms of logic and observed reality, between which the fundamental paradox lies. In the first race, Zeno upheld the logic of infinite number of gaps between tortoise and Achilles and adjudicated in favour of the privileged tortoise. In the second race, there was no Zeno for logical interception, hence Achilles overtook tortoise and observed reality reigned. In the third race, as is evidently applicable in contemporary India, neither logic nor observed reality seems to be winning. The democratic election process is generally conducive to the winning of the majority of the people in a logical sense; but the fact is that the literals, despite their numerical strength of majority are not able to seize political power through an electoral vote. Constitutional safeguards and legal empowerment provided to literals in the post-independence era should have uplifted them; but observed reality is that they are still the sufferers at the hands of the socially privileged minority laterals. Because, struggle for survival is the deciding factor.

RMF: Maria, I hear you saying that reason and myth, non-fiction and fiction, are narratives of complementary potential, not as necessarily oppositional? I think your “mythical facts” presumption, which sounds like an oxymoron or paradoxical, is interesting phrasing.

BMK: Yes. Myths hide some facts of wisdom and unveil scientific phenomena of nature which the primitive humans interpreted in their own ways when neither science nor language was developed in those days. Hence I would like to say that neither all that is mythical is irrational nor all that is irrational is mythical.

RMF: I agree. I think that is why we need the category arational, as distinct from but related to irrational.

BMK: Many of the mythical facts, and their imaginative fluidity and creativity, might be of scientific, social, environmental or economic nature, which may amount to hypotheses to be tested. Tested throughout living experience, some could stand and some couldn’t. Historically, there are a few mythical characters and concepts that made a sense of logic and reason for their continued relevance in the realms of biology, physical chemistry, geography, law etc.

Flora is the goddess of flowers and Faunus the god of woods, hence flora and fauna becomes a collective name for plants and animals. Hermaphroditus in Greek mythology is the offspring of Hermes and Aphrodite, who has both male and female bodies intertwined, never to part. Representing wholeness. Both the sexes are fused into one. When modern biologists discovered certain organisms like earthworms have male and female reproductive organs on one body, they called such organisms as hermaphrodites because the mythical character had already been in currency and no new nomenclature was required to be coined. Atlas, the mythological Titan used to carry the world on his shoulders. Flemish geographer Mercator gave the term atlas to the collection of maps of the nations. Volcano is a lava emitting mountain. Its name comes from

51 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Vulcan, the Greek god of fire who used to live on Mount Etna. Tantalum is a rare metal that was named after Tantalus, who wronged the gods and was punished with the impossibility of drinking water though he was always immersed in water. Tantalum the metal when kept in water never corrodes. Niobium is another rare metal which is always found with tantalum in its ores. And Niobe was the daughter of Tantalus. Greek myths left impact not only on science and arts but also on law. There are many other examples. (See Appendix 1)

Many of the mythical facts, and their imaginative fluidity and creativity, might be of scientific, social, environmental or economic nature which may amount to hypotheses to be tested. -B. Maria Kumar

RMF: Interesting history of the mythic-science connection, the pre-rational and rational worlds creating together. But I have to ask how you as an Eastern person from India, make sense of the ancient myths before Greek? Why focus on Greek myths, and is that a good thing? I know in your publications you use pre-Greek myths at times.

BMK: Yes. We know that the proliferation of Greek and Roman mythologies since at least the Medieval era had reached other parts of the world and Shakespeare, Milton, Keats and others used those characters in their English poems. In the same way, the western mythological literature reached the easterners and they also experimented in their artistic endeavours, of course besides using their own local mythological characters generously.

RMF: I’d like us to look briefly at the way “fear” and its management today can potentially be informed in useful ways by myth(ology) and ancient narratives that guided humanity. It’s a device that asserts and inscribes a larger, if not mythic, meaning to fear and gives it a grandeur status, symbolically, and keeps it a mystery—even, keeps it beyond human knowing to some degree. I think that’s a healthy attitude to take towards this powerful subject.

BMK: True. In psychology, the Oedipus Complex refers to the male child’s largely unconscious feelings of desire for his mother. Oedipus was actually a king in Greek mythology who unknowingly killed his father and slept with his mother. Freud interpreted that this myth was created to give vent to the repressed desires and fears. In other words, such unconscious feelings and fears were already existing in human minds, hence the stories were woven in thematic expressions.

RMF: And such stories were therapeutic. Fears and desires. These are the components of the affective sphere, often below consciousness. Therapeutically, myths in this sense offer what is called a ‘third object’ or ‘displacement object’ of relational exchange in the symbolic modality, externalized from the direct personal psyche and its limitations to manage painful experience— that is, fearful if not terrifying experience—existential and/or psychological as in relationships with parents. This offers a mythic culturally-induced buffer object for also the entire collective psyche—e.g., the tribe. In other words, such stories externalize very painful taboos set inside the psyche through socialization processes but which the psyche itself and the ‘normal’ institutions that created the taboos do not want to confront literally—do not want to feel internally. Myths tapped into the Shadow in that Jungian sense. This is intriguing as I have long been searching for

52 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

a cultural therapia of theory and practice or praxis. Incorporating the mythic and arational dimensions are essential.

BMK: Similarly, certain uncontrollable drunken behaviour is termed as Dionysian Frenzy because the Greek wine god Dionysius was already portrayed in the myths as the one who, accompanied by women, used to roam the woods in an uncontrollable trance like demeanour.

RMF: Exactly, the mythic is used to name and point to the arational trance-like and/or irrational.

BMK: Albert Camus, in his book , The Myth of Sisyphus, talks of Sisyphus who was punished eternally to roll a rock up a mountain only to have it roll it down as soon he pushed it laboriously to the top. Camus interpreted that Sisyphus character, structure and narrative, in a metaphorical way, thus signifying the existential human struggle against the meaninglessness of life. At least, that’s one existential explanation. Suffering and tragedy are often the basis of many myths.

As you hinted at how mythology could forge a scientific reason-based rationalism approach to fearology and fearism, I would like to opine that there were thinkers who propounded their schools of thought on those lines. One example is that of Niccolò Machiavelli, a Renaissance realist, who referred to Theseus, a mythical hero in his work. He exhorted that Theseus could not have shown his ability had he not found the Athenians dispersed. It was that opportunity that made him fortunate and famous. While advising the king on how to keep his power secure, Machiavelli said, “It is much safer to be feared than loved.” Because, as he explained, people will be less likely to conspire against someone they fear than they love.

RMF: Interesting, as I have read several books on leadership and fear over the years, and Machiavelli is often talked about as having a particular ideology of fear management and politics, some of those ideas as useful and some not so useful. I am not a Machiavellian myself but I can see the attraction. I just didn’t know the roots of that thinking go back to interpreting Theseus.

What a lot of people don’t know about my own work, which only now and then draws on mythology, is that back in the mid-1990s I developed a theory of fear or ‘Fear’ to be more precise, that circulated upon the ontological and ontogenetic mythological figurations of Phobos and Thanatos. That’s a long story, but if you search my history of thought on the Love vs. Fear archetypal patterning that I found almost universal across all the major religions of the world through time and still a relevant ‘theodicy’ itself, much like Good vs. Evil stories—that, I found Wilber’s articulation of Eros-Agape as the generative healthy ‘Love’ side of evolutionary motivation and drive as a compelling kosmology and that when they are not functioning well, for various reasons, then Eros is taken over, more or less by Phobos and Agape by Thanatos. This mythological rendering, in part, also is philosophically quite sophisticated in Wilber’s developmental and evolutionary integral theory (Fisher, 1997).

Often I say to people, it won’t be useful to only imagine “fear” or ‘fear’ in a simple rational and scientific or psychological imaginary, because Fear has roots going way back in our history and in the incomprehensible domains of unknowing. Which you spoke about as well re: the mythological dimension. Such a perspective makes me write Fear with capitals like the gods and

53 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

goddesses often were and are written in capital letters to somewhat personify them and work with them as a ‘third object’ in a therapia project of reclamation and integration of fears and desires over the ages—back into the dark unconscious of our past in history and culture but also back to our own developmental unconscious in the womb and some even say back into karmic cycles. That’s another angle re: past lives, etc. But I think there’s lots of complexity here re: fear, Fear and that’s the point of our discussion. Does this make sense to you? Do you ever think of using fear as Fear with capitals? Would Fear be a more soulful and holistic expression in your mind, in light of our discussion?

BMK: Yes Michael! Four Arrows and you (Jacobs, 1998; Fisher, 2018) used a capital Fear to distinguish it from individualistic fear. Capitalised Fear, as my understanding goes, is used to refer to certain distinct feelings from a long-time primal world and/or a large scale impact phenomena, for example, saying like the whole continent was in the grip of Fear during World War. On the other hand, small case fear can be used for individual anxieties and concrete everyday fears of the present. I feel that that the usage of capitalised Fear will conform to general agreement in such specific circumstances or in respect of certain epochs of history; like we call the period of panic and riots during the French Revolution as Great Fear (capitalised ).

RMF: The 1798 French Revolution- some historians call the “Reign of Terror” with capital ‘T’. Today we have the phenomenon “culture of fear” but those critics never use “Culture of Fear” or “culture of Fear” which I would prefer because of the scale and historicity of the phenomena. I use ‘Fear’ Project and do so because of the reasons you mention above. I think capitalized versions of terms gives also room for the unknown and mysterious in their essence, in the sense they are above and beyond what we humans and our language, words, concepts can fully embrace—e.g., God is a good example, or Love, and now I propose Fear also is of this categorical transcendent quality or macro-order of being. What if Fear was, in some sense, seen as a being (or Being)? I think this is a point that Osinakachi Akuma Kalu, a young fearologist from Nigeria (Kalu, 2017), tends to make in his fearontology musings (see this issue IJFS). But, I don’t want to go into that here and distract us, and I’m sure you have more to say...

BMK: In the same manner, capitalised God and small case god were and are used to make differentiation in the meanings and feelings the people normally attribute. We observe that the capitalised God is used mostly by the theists who do it with reverence and respect. Theists consequently use small case gods and goddesses in reference to Greek deities. It is then supposed that the Greek pantheon is fictional and the capitalised God of current religions is true God. It is a kind of faith involved in usage of language accordingly. Interestingly there was also a famous archaeologist named Heinrich Schliemann who claimed to have excavated the mythical Troy and felt confused at his death bed whether to pray to the God of Bible or to the god of Olympus.

When the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus propounded binomial nomenclature as a species classification system for evolutionary mapping, the same sort of understanding was intended. Each plant, bestowed upon a scientific name, has two parts in its name; the first one showing which genus it belongs to and the second part is species name. The same method was followed for the animal kingdom too, including humans. Binomial names like Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus etc. have the first name capitalised but the second (species) name is in small case thereby meaning that the genus is of a larger order in nature, encompassing

54 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

a variety of species within it, whereas species is a set of individuals having similar characteristics but the subset is of a smaller order in scope.

RMF: What about a philosophy of fearism (a la Subba) as it is shaping itself?

BMK: At one juncture above you said that Desh Subba has not put fearism to any sort of analysis under the mythological dimension but defined it’s work in terms of mostly modernist rational interpretations, etc. What I mean to say is that Subba interprets in a different manner from what Freud interpreted, for example, dreams or myths expressing the hidden and unfulfilled or unvented desires or fears. That way, myths could be viewed as expressions of something inexplicable like abstract art. Some writers manifest their unconscious feelings through myths and folklore, some sculptors in their ready-made or kinetic objects or some painters in their abstract forms of art.

RMF: For sure, I know this as an artist myself. I think there is more than unconscious feelings alone being transmitted in abstract art, or abstract ideas. One might push our fear imaginary to even think of when we speak of Fear, we may be speaking for Fear itself and/or channeling the energy, patterns, and feelings of Fear itself. Now, that would really challenge the rational and scientific explanations for what “fear” is and isn’t. I am attempting to get us thinking from a consciousness beyond dualism as separation of subject vs. object as if they don’t interact and influence each other—or even in some cases they fuse in a nondualism sense. Maybe we, you and I, are at some point(s) dialoguing with Fear, not merely talking about fear.

And, it’s right here, where in our discussion Maria you can see that with including myths, arts and sciences, morality, politics and history and so on, there ought to be no limitation on the discipline and types of knowledges we draw up in order to better understand fear and how to manage it. We are inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary in our approach.

The artistic part of me, and the mythic part of me, is now swelling in this conversation to think that probably Fear itself is not manageable and our relationship with Fear ought not to be put under only that rational-management and scientific perspective of analysis. I attempt in my work to use ‘fear’ with the (‘) marks, or even ‘Fear’—because intuitively from the beginning, with my postmodernist tendency, I wanted the (‘) marks to indicate a deconstruction of the common and habitual definitions, ideas, meanings of fear. I started that epistemological move or strategy because I felt the data on fear that is mostly available and readily consumed by us as contemporary peoples is “tainted” already—it is reductive and epistemologically flawed because of this dualism/reductionism in the rationalist-management agenda.

That said, I also think a notion of fear management/ education is pragmatic too. So, I am appreciating the mythic dimension in our conversation because it connects and reconfigures, at least somewhat, our fear imaginaries to expand and keep expanding and to keep an attitude of “I don’t know it all” when it comes to the topic of fear or anything else for that matter. This makes the dialogue educative in my view. It makes it potent for emancipation as well. I’m not interested in repeating over and over the same knowledge basis for fear and fear management that there is so much of out there in the world today. Fearology and fearism carry the possibility of new ways of knowing fear, ‘fear’ and Fear and ‘Fear.’ And, likewise, dialectically that applies also to

55 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

fearlessness, ‘fearlessness’ and ‘Fearlessness.’

Appendix 1 : Myths Applied

The myth of Scylla and Charybdis is a striking example of the concept of larger good. Odysseus and his men have to sail through a demonic strait between the six headed monster Scylla on one side and the huge whirlpool called Charybdis on the other side of the strait. Odysseus steers closer to Scylla than to Charybdis because it is better to lose six men than a whole ship. In the same spirit, an illustration of a ship captain has been stated as general exception to legal penalty under section-81 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Modern Euro currency that features the myth of Zeus and Europa seeks to connect the modern Europe to ancient culture of Greece. The American military usage of Nike Missile Project takes after Nike, the mythical goddess of victory. Trojans , a computer hacking methodology is named after the wooden Trojan Horse in which Achilles, the hero of The Iliad and his men concealed themselves to attack Troy.

B. Maria Kumar

Living in India, is a long-term career police officer, recently retired as Director General of Police in Bhopal. He has published many books, such as Policing By Common Sense, To Be or Not to Be Happy, Be Selfish But Good and most recently The Youth Don’t Cry: A Critical Commentary on the Youth About Their Fears and Hopes Amidst Adversities and Opportunities. Contact: [email protected]

References Cited

Eneyo, M. (2018). Philosophy of fear: A move to overcoming negative fear. Australia: Xlibris. Fisher, R. M. (2018). Fearless engagement of Four Arrows: The true story of an Indigenous-based social transformer. NY: Peter Lang. Fisher, R. M. (1997). Thanatos and Phobos: 'Fear' and its role in Ken Wilber's transpersonal theory. Technical Paper No. 4. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R. M., Subba, D. & Kumar, B. M. (2018). Fear, law and criminology: Critical issues in applying a philosophy of fearism. Australia: Xlibris. Hillman, J. (1977). Re-visioning psychology. NY: Harper & Row. Jacobs, D. T. (1998). Primal awareness: A true story of survival, awakening and transformation with the Rarámuri shamans of Mexico. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions. Kalu, O. A. (2017). The first stage of the fearologist. AmazonCreateSpace. Kumar, B. M., Fisher, R. M. & Subba, D. (upcoming). India, a nation of fear and prejudice. Australia: Xlibris. Subba, D. ( 2015). The tribesman’s journey to fearless: A novel based on fearism. [Trans. Pancha Vismrit]. Australia: Xlibris. Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear. Australia: Xlibris.

****

56 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Excerpt of Francisco Goya’s “Saturn Devouring His Son” (digital modification by R. Michael Fisher)

****

57 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Open Source Stock Photo

A Sea of Future Feelings Osinakachi Akuma Kalu Nigeria

Just as there stands the ocean With many boats on its vast bosom each boat carrying people Facing complex challenges So we are in our world, Same struggle same complexities.

Always in a struggle Like the old philosophical conflict Causing confusion to the self Objective decision a challenge Not knowing the outcome How safe is the self?

58 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Just like the world of good and evil A result of how you conduct your affairs So is emotion Positive or negative alike Whether fear or love.

One's world is mixed with feelings In a complex world With disruptive technology We swim in the sea of future worries What could be our fate in the future? If our fear(s) are not contained.

Marching into a strange age, lost in fear What if the ancients visit They may not sit Because the rearranged setting Needs a long seating to understand To cope in a place of their formal setting.

Creating a fear based society In the name of improving lives Such blatant lies! Humanity needs a better existence And not a fearful one.

Now that the world appears evolving Reality might be devolving Since reality as such is now manipulated There is no longer harmony in nature A hiatus, causing a complete chaos in nature.

Where is the beauty of nature? Now it is raped of its locus As everything goes artificial Who will cover mother nature? An utmost concern to emotive educator.

Swimming in the sea of fear Living in hopelessness

59 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

One ought to learn To master the emotion So as to thread on the right path A better existential experience Lead your fear.

-OAK Free Verse Poem Based on the implication of fearism in transhumanism; (i.e., existential fearism) 15th February 2019.

60 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Courage/Couragelessness: Rethinking the Fear/Fearlessness Dialectic

Luke Barnesmoore & R. Michael Fisher1 USA-Canada

[Sen. Ed.’s Note: What happens to reading, writing, comprehension, when an anarchist-nomadic inquiry (Barnesmoore) and an exile positioning outside the ‘Fear’ Matrix (Fisher) combines... ? Well, the following is what happens... which is in many ways a bit like encountering a surrealist painting.... One best not expect anything too ‘ordinary’ for your left-brains to find comfort. This intense piece is really quite a trip ‘beyond’ ].

Pre-Ramble: Superiority, an Abysmal Conflation of Metaphysical Reality

The net of problems of injustice in the world, past, present and in the oncoming future-present are characteristically rooted in the many and varied contextual manifestations of the superiority- supremacism form. In search of the metaphysical pathology hidden by the banal invisibility of Western thought (worldview/ideologies) for Western subjects, the authors critically recognize, conceptualize and unveil the superiority-supremacism form, the conflation of dualistic and nondualistic phenomena, and the all too common synthesis of superiority-supremacism and the conflation of dualistic/nondualistic phenomena that form an essential aspect of the Colonial Modernist Worldview (C.M. Worldview ; see Barnesmoore 2018) as a critique of Western knowledge and conceptions of human history manufactured therein.

Dualistic phenomena like ‘light and dark’ are conflated with non-dualistic phenomena like ‘good and evil,’ which ought to, preferably, be described as good and privation of the good. This conflation—when fused with supremacist logics that lead to valorization of one-side of natural dualities (light/male) as superior to the other side of natural dualities (dark/female)—manufactures a neurotic subjectivity that is deprived of its natural goodness, and tends to manufacture a near-totalizing paranoic-phallic lens (as if ‘natural’) 2 on reality—driven by mostly unconscious fear patterning (i.e., an unfilled liminal vacuum-void). ‘Versus’ (i.e., againstness) is transmitted from the metaphysical positioning of the Artificial-Domineering Worldview

1 We acknowledge the valuable thoughts of Four Arrows (aka Dr. Don T. Jacobs) offered during the creation of this article in the early stages. Before Fisher was brought on as co-author, there is the original manuscript “Courage and Couragelessness” (Barnesmoore 2019). Prior FearTalks (video dialogues) of Barnesmoore & Fisher (2019, 2019a) are supplementary to many things in this article. 2 From a matrixial critical theory view: “The language of representation [in A. D. Worldview], and especially the contemporary one that has armed the eye at the expense of the eye’s other possibilities, is a paranoic language disguised as neutral [i.e., naturalized, normalized] and transparent. Armed with the [fear-based, unfilled liminal vacuum-void] phallic gaze we read what we see through the screen of paranoia [i.e., paranoic subjectivities] while we believe that there is no screen at all” (Ettinger 2009, p. 6).

61 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

(A.D. Worldview)—of which the C.M. Worldview is but the latest incarnation (Barnesmoore 2018, 2018a)—into our world via the hierarchical ways of knowing that emerge from this conflation.

Light becomes associated with Goodness, Darkness with Evil; so (too often) is masculinity associated with goodness and femininity associated with evil—this supremacist imbalance leads to and emerges from an ontological deep fear of ceasing to be—a fear that inspires a perverse desire (obsessive need) to disempower, devalue, conquer and colonize the natural order of motion, and qualities of change, difference and irregularity (e.g. the desire/need to conquer death) through hierarchical imposition of artificially unitary and regular order1—this desire for artificially unitary and regular order leads sustention to be known as superior to destruction and creation—it leads creation and destruction to be subdued to the purposes of sustention.

New contextually adapted iterations of the A.D. Worldview are manufactured to sustain the illusion of reform through the process of genocidal assimilation, and destruction is saved for those who try to step beyond the boundaries of the A.D. Worldview. The (mythic) twins have been sundered and dissociation prevails; the sands of time have been sequestered; Cain (Life-Light) kills Abel (Birth/Death-Darkness); Vishnu is caged, disfigured by the disconnection that arises from the hierarchically imposed solitude of the throne, perpetually attempting to manufacture an artificial replica (simulacra) of the Eternal in manifestation through perpetual obsessive domination of the natural order of difference and irregularity, perpetually fearing the return of Shiva because he has forgotten that Brahma emerges from her womb, the masculine archon perpetually fearing the feminine divine/goddesses, perpetually fearing the over- crowding brought on by Brahma when unbalanced by Shiva—Brahma and Shiva are in chains, brought into the light of day only when their force can be enslaved to Vishnu’s perverse fear-based quest towards perpetual sustention in passing time and physical space arrest the creation-destruction dialectic. Vishnu’s throne lies in the Natural History Museum, the physical embodiment of the C.M. Worldview’s drive to sustention in passing time and physical space through domination of the natural order of creation- destruction. (Haraway 1989; Barnesmoore 2016)

At the heart of this conflation of dualistic phenomena with non-dualistic phenomena lies an insidious lack of metaphysical nuance in discerning between things like goodness that have a selfsubsistent existence— in and of themselves—and privations like evil that have no such basis within the Nothing-Infinite Eternal (NIE). With this conflation as context for critique, and serving as analytical lens, Barnesmoore argues that the fear/fearlessness dialectic, utilized as a core premise in Fisher’s theorizing, could (though not necessarily) lead people to fall into this trap of assigning selfsubsistance to a privation (fear) and describing a reality that has selfsubsistance (fearlessness) as a privation. On the contrary, fear is a privation (the - lessness), an unfilled liminal vacuum-void. Fearlessness is, rather than a privation of fear, a state of eternal courage(love/truth/trust/wonder/etc.) that is fomented through healthy intimacy with the NIE. Fear ensues when a moment of shock and the liminal vacuum-void produced by the moment of shock goes unfilled—(the spirit of) fearlessness ensues when the liminal vacuum-void is effortlessly-stresslessly filled by the NIE (by what Four Arrows often describes as radical “fearless” faith/trust in the universe).

1 See Fisher’s A-ness (artificial-mechanical aesthetic pattern) in contradistinction to D-ness (natural-organic aesthetic pattern) research (Fisher 2012) and Barnesmoore (2018a) exploration of the relationship between the history of cities/agriculture and this desire to manufacture artificial unity and regularity through domination of the natural order of difference and irregularity.

62 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

In summary, Barnesmoore’s argument leaves room for “natural fear”1 with a poignant cautionary. The translation of this theorization of natural fear into concrete action in this world, wickedly complicated by the reality that the natural state of fear described by Barnesmoore’s theorization, has been historically perverted by a worldview (A.D.) and associated system of hierarchical domination that—in their attempts to help the sprouts of our innate-instinctual virtue (e.g., eternal courage, fearlessness, directed towards protection of the sacred) ‘grow’ through pulling on them through traumatization via punishment and fear of punishment (and fear of fear itself; fear of fearlessness itself; fear of the eternal2). Such unhelpful helping growth as this severely governs people en mass through a weaponization of fear via artificially manufactured ‘fear’ and inevitably sustains the emptiness of liminal vacuum-voids via their ontological hierarchical-materialist assumptions concerning the nature of reality. A cancerous predatory capitalism, like all arrogant superiority-assumed ideologism, is predicated upon and foments this maintained (unnecessary) emptiness—as suffering. In this metaphysical pathology, Culture-story itself becomes the cause-and-effect of fear’s perpetuation—the disease vector. The current diagnosis by many disciplines of a pervasive “culture of fear” is not without its perverse precedents in the deepest hidden curricula of the C.M. Worldview.

In this article, the authors, sometimes in agreement, sometimes not, nomadically explore the deeper recesses of Fear Studies’ metaphysical foundations to set the stage for this discussion of fear/fearlessness v. courage/couragelessness and the seeming synthesis of ‘fear/fearless-courage/trust/truth/love/ wonder/etc.’ that has emerged from the liminal or vacuum-voids formed by the meeting of these two phrasings (in the space between the wings of the ‘v’3).

In contradistinction to a mere normal and neutral “cultural” lens, the authors, both with strong political, ethical, activist and philosophical interests, call for and have taken on the topic of Conscious-Cultural Evolution (Ouspensky 1951; Geddes 1915; Mumford 1967; Mumford 1970; Barnesmoore 2016, 2017, 2018) as perhaps the only sane way to understand human(ity) evolution if we wish to create a just and sustainable social order. They both see fear as essential for understanding their projects of research and education and of understanding cultural evolution. Their collaboration involves a good deal of passion with one author, with a strong philosophical background, being fresh to this stream of intellectual engagement with fear (Barnesmoore) and one (Fisher) being a seasoned fearologist in this stream of intellectual engagement with fear. Both observe a general under theorization of fear in the social ‘sciences’ and humanities (e.g., Barnesmoore 2018c). This article takes off from a point of a Natural- Indigenous Worldview and the unity-difference, dual/nondual (Barnesmoore) and integral (Fisher) perspectives of the authors and develops a critical lens for observing ways we come to know fear in a culture whose hegemonic undercurrent is defined by the A.D. Worldview. They assert that fear in this undercurrent already undermines (i.e., taints) the very imaginaries, theories and methodologies in which we typically come to know fear, define it, and manage it.

1 This is also an Indigenous perspective, as articulated by Four Arrows’ philosophical interpretation where “Nature” is said to be our best ultimate teacher about fear and courage (Fisher, 2018a, p. 264)—because nature’s fear is not twisted and/or constructed within the vacuum-voids of human “Culture.” 2 “Fear of the eternal” has been previously discussed, in relation to development of “law” via “hierarchical security” (Fisher & Barnesmoore 2018). 3 Preferring a ‘v’ instead of ‘vs.’ (versus) signifier: the point where the two lines meet in the letter ‘v’ is the state of being that we are trying to describe with different words (fearlessness and eternal-courage/trust/truth/love/wonder/etc.)—our different words are the two lines—we are coming from different angles towards the same point, using different words to describe the same fearless state of being—the new phrasing, fearless-truth/love/trust/wonder/courage/etc., embodies the energy that is created by the friction that is created in the liminal space between the two wings of the ‘v’ (i.e., in the womb) as the two phrasings rub against each other.

63 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

INTRODUCTION

Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. -Ludwig Wittgenstein1

We must of course avoid naturalizing Wittgenstein’s conception of the relationship between language and philosophy, which is surely contextual to the hierarchically domineering historical subjectivities (Foucault 1972) that have been manufactured by the MegaMachine (Mumford 1967, 1970) (e.g., A. D. Worldview and the hierarchical civilizations it spawns); but we live in a context where elite class actors seek to enslave life on earth through a synthesis of “bewitchment”2 and “disenchantment”3 (Herman 2008). Philosophy, in our contexts, can also be seen as a battle against the bewitchment via our fear (a bewitchment that ought to be contradicted by means of a mature and intelligent fearlessness) and the disenchantment of our world that divides us from the NIE that ought to fill the liminal vacuum-void that we associate with moments of shock. At least that’s a potential reframing of Wittgenstein’s cautionary that excites the imaginary by which we engage philosophy and, by which we share this article as (r)evolutionary project—a movement towards a guidance and awakening of the natural process of Conscious-Cultural Evolution (Geddes 1915; Ouspensky 1951; Barnesmoore 2016, 2017) whose potential is constrained and in some cases negated4 by the A.D. Worldview that much of humanity has been enslaved to for the last several millennia (from Washington D.C. to London to Paris to Rome to Athens to Babylonian Egypt to Babylon the Great to Sumer to the Indus Valley to the Yellow Emperor’s China and beyond into other such falling empires/ hierarchical civilizations).

Amongst the traditional status quo and new scholarship on the study of fear, Fisher (e.g., 2010 ) has pursued a particular “philosophy of fearlessness” (Fisher 2018),5 which is arguably unparalleled. It directly confronts and contradicts a largely fear-based Western (Enlightenment) philosophy/ worldview.6 It also acknowledges that despite the inherited legacy of philosophical

1 Cited in Brown (1958, p. 71). Brown also remarked on Cassirer’s view of language as essentially “metaphorical” and a mode of “erotic expression” that succumbs to the domination of the reality-principle (p. 70)—the latter, linked to the Dominant worldview as discussed in this article. Any talk about “fear” ought to be metaphorical as well as literal in order to keep ourselves from becoming over-dosed with rationalism and its domination tendencies we may unconsciously bring into the investigation of fear via the Dominant worldview. 2 Equally intertwined with ‘bewitchment’ is a mass hypnosis (see Four Arrows, 2016, Chapter 1; and Fisher, 2018, p. 2). Recently Four Arrows called it “hypnotic trance-logical self-protection ‘programming’” (pers. comm., Feb. 6, 2019). 3 See our citation of Herman (2008) p. 76 below for elucidation of his use of the term disenchanted. 4 As Ouspensky (1951) notes, conscious evolution is dependent upon direction of will towards actualization of inner qualities like intuition, virtue, wisdom, love, etc. Because conscious evolution is dependent upon direction of will (and will not inevitably occur without such direction of will), our transition from bio-mechanical evolution to conscious-cultural evolution creates the potential for devolution if we fail to direct our will towards conscious-cultural evolution. The A.D. Worldview leads to hierarchical relationships that kill the sprouts that we direct our will toward to facilitate conscious-cultural evolution, and the C.M. incarnation of the A.D. Worldview denies the transpersonal reality of the spiritual self altogether and thus constrains our ability to direct will inwards towards conscious-cultural evolution. 5 Which has recently been revised to a “fearlessness philosophy” (Fisher 2007a, 2017, 2018) and “fearlessness psychology” (Fisher 2019a); these we will not be covering in this article as they are distinct and require study themselves but their basis is primarily situated in alignment with Fisher’s prior philosophy of fearlessness writings. 6 Also called “Dominant” worldview (e.g., Four Arrows 2016) , “Mechanical” (Barnesmoore 2016) and “Artificial” worldview (e.g., Barnesmoore 2018) and form of evolution.

64 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

“Cartesian anxiety,”1 we ought not overburden Fear Studies with only a construct and imaginary of fear which demonizes and makes fear only a problem, disease or evil to be delivered from through conquest, colonization (Warrior 1989) and/or some synthesis of elimination/ assimilation therein; this cautionary point helps us to avoid the insidious seductions of hierarchical dualism—that is, a fear-based rationalism ideology glued to the biomedical, psychological and dominating clinical approach to the topic—fear management; we’ll return to this later in the article, but in short our object of critique is the unnatural way that fear is experienced and responded to by the subjectivities that emerge from hierarchical civilization rather than by fear itself. Simply, we take seriously the dictum: Fear problems will not be solved by fear-based means.

With the Fear Problem as a complex network (or ‘Fear’ Matrix2), according to Fisher, a Fisherian perspective, with its corrective set of assumptions, new referents and parameters (i.e., new paradigm and/or worldview) in understanding the nature and role of fear, offers a precarious ethical path with universal applications. Fisher calls this the “path of fearlessness”—a developmental (soul) path from fear to fearlessness.3 With a dialectical philosophy in general, fear/fearlessness is posited as a co-evolving contingent phenomena in Fisher’s thesis4 for understanding not only human behavior but the system dynamics of the Kosmos itself (Fisher 2019). At the same time, as Wittgenstein alluded, fear/fearlessness or any alternative to it, is language as metaphor and not merely a phenomena in the literal sense; yet, a relationship dynamic nonetheless valuable in that it provokes and represents both potency and limitation and is always pointing to mystery, inevitably, beyond our total knowing. An intelligent, intimate, ethical and existential fearlessness, in part, requires this humble, vulnerable uncertainty and sacred epistemology5 that embraces non-neurotically unthought knowing and ludic experimental eroticism. Simply, this article may not be an easy read. We don’t expect it to be understood on a first scan by those with whom we do not hold an intimate relationship.6

Both authors have acknowledged the pivotal role fear and its management (conscious or unconscious) plays in shaping human potentials for thought, feeling, behaviour, conception of being and the conscious-cultural (d)evolution of these potentials, and many other thinkers have also acknowledged this in the literatures from around the world (e.g., Eneyo 2018; Subba 2014). Both authors call for an intervention “for Conscious Evolution” (Barnesmoore, 2016a, p. 113) in

1 E.g., on “Cartesian Anxiety” see Varela, Thompson & Rosch (1992), pp. 133-40. For further elaboration of how fear/anxiety insidiously taints methodology and science(s), see Devereux (1967), and Maslow (1966). 2 The more encompassing formation prior to ‘Fear’ Matrix is ‘Fear’ Project: “a complex term [coined by Fisher in the late 1980s] that refers to the dynamic defense mechanism of fear projection but on a metaphysical (ontological) level, with implications for everyday life; its opposition [is] Fearlessness Project” (Fisher & Subba 2016, p. 156). Fisher (2010) links this to Wilber’s work re: the Atman Project etc. (e.g., Wilber 1980/82). 3 See “Path of Fearlessness: Stages of the Soul’s Journey” (Figure 2.1, in Fisher 2010, p. 48). 4 This dialectic has also been conceptualized by Fisher for some time where Love/Fear are given focus and recently he has called for a trialectic constitution as the better way to go (Fisher 2017a ). In this paper we’ll not explicitly engage Fisher’s trialectic Love-Fearlessness-Fear thesis. 5 Barnesmoore (2016a) pursues this specifically as “virtue epistemology” (pp. 107-09). 6 Obviously at one level we hold an intimate relationship with all that which is, but in this case we mean ‘do not hold an intimate relationship’ in more grounded spatiotemporal terms that could be stated as ‘those who have not spent enough time talking with us/ reading our writings to understand the nuanced meanings that are implied by our use of language’.

65 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

contradistinction to the current Colonial-Modernist trends1 (i.e., C. M. Worldview) of most societal formations, especially in Capitalist and Communist worlds that have been conquered and colonized by unsustainable economic theologies that are perhaps most aptly described by their slavish reduction of humans to labourers and of reality to ‘the world[view] of total work’ (Pieper 2009).

Barnesmoore (2016a) set the stage, in summary, for an overall project of interest which both authors foreground in their research on development and planning and on fear and fear management/education:

[I]f the human is a discrete, biological individual, what is it therefore not?.... the Modernist definition of humanity as a discrete, biological entity (Foucault, History of Sexuality VI) negates the potential for Conscious Evolution in defining humans in a manner that eschews [fears] the ‘invisible’ dimension of self. If reality consists of passing time and physical space [as ‘norm’ consensual reality], then Infinite Substance [NIE] is necessarily relegated to the sphere of unreality (madness). Modernism, then, negates the potential for Conscious Evolution.... We must redefine humanity and reality in terms that are sensitive to Infinite Substance [NIE] and humanity’s potential for Conscious Evolution if we are going to have the (r)evolution of theory (‘world view’, ‘mind’, [heart] consciousness) necessary for the development of social systems (for the planning of social order) that will socialize the public in a manner that expands potential for Consciousness Evolution (and thus social development and ethical outcomes like environmental justice). (p. 113)

Justice in human relations with each other and with the rest of nature is dependent upon the transcendence of the illusion of discrete individuality—a justice that is made possible through the “experiences of wholeness” (Cajete 1994) like “satori” (Cleary 1991) that emerge from the process of Conscious-Cultural Evolution (Barnesmoore 2018).

Arguably, the self-fear-Other (tripartite) system of relationality and the underlying myth of discrete biological individuality is of great interest here as a tripartite ‘unit’ of analysis—as the basic pattern by which fear is manufactured. Fear is not merely an object (fears)—that is, ‘out there’ (Blaser 2013) in the ‘real world’ and measurable in materialistic units or psychological units. The philosophical approach to fear demands something more than reductionism’s pull (via positivism) to control and represent that which may be largely uncontrollable and unrepresent- able in terms of capturing fear totally. It also requires something more than the post-positivist, post(most)modern reduction of reality to the difference and irregularity of passing time and physical space and dismissal of the potential for any form of healthy abstraction-generalization therein2. The literary sensibility and poetic, the aesthetic of our inquiry, the mystery, is not

1 Beyond the scope of this article, we both also critique the trends of history and the build-up to where modernism then emerged as well as contemporary societies. The cultural evolution of worldviews is foundational in our work. 2 We can generalize an underlying order of things in the structure of systems like capitalism, western law, western democracy, etc. without assuming that everything fits within that generalized order of things—humans are good, and though these systems serve to kill the sprouts of our goodness we remain capable of breaching their limits. Abstraction of form-order from the

66 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

something we ignore. This dimension may not be featured in this article per se, but there is always an underlining awareness to re-imagine fear throughout the process of inquiry—and, to remain as aware as possible that natural fear (i.e., an ethical fear of the privation of the eternal from manifestation through destruction of the sacred) may be lying in a proverbial (metaphoric) ‘black box’ like Nature’s essence Herself—whereby, to force open the lid and probe and cut into the ‘box’ to find out what fear is, to define it (via imprisoning it), may be the very act of chasing fear away from our exposure.1

Respectful subtlety is surely required to know fear well. The contemporary writer Lia Purpura nicely captured this tacit quality in an essay exploring her life/memories and her exposure to media re: the uncaught “sniper” in her city, in the space between:

Where is the fear this afternoon? Where did it go and why can’t I locate it now?.... What is it that took this morning over, washed it with a morning past and by that breath, kept from it the fear....2

Redefining humanity through recourse to the ‘invisible self’ (Nicoll 1989), whose ontological status the C.M. Worldview denigrates, is compatible with the Fisherian project for a holistic- integral philosophy and psychology of fearlessness. Fisher argues that philosophy and psychology ought to be shaped by fearlessness (and thus, by fear) as much as they are disciplines to be utilized (as merely a ‘neutral’ tool) in studying fear/fearlessness. Fisher also argues there is no one single reductionistic definition of fear or fearlessness that all can agree upon. The complexity of defining is immense because of that a specialized epistemology of fear is called for in our post(most)modern times (Fisher & Subba 2016; Chapter Three). Barnesmoore thinks it is possible to develop an abstract definition of fear and fearlessness that is general enough to allow for the difference and irregularity of the order of manifestation (and thus multiple contextual definitions of fear to augment the abstract-general definition)—fearless courage (or eternal-courage) arises from intimacy with the NIE, and fear arises when the liminal vacuum-void that emerges from the shock of a perceived potential for the privation of the eternal (sacred) is not filled or is filled by an energy that lacks eternity.

environment of its many manifestations allows us to understand the essence of a form (the underlying order-form that exists beyond manifestation). We abstract a form-order from the grounds of its context of manifestation as water is evaporated from the ground to form a raincloud—this abstracted cloud (abstract-general understanding of form-order) can then fall down into the grounds of the form-order’s manifestation in other contexts so that we can better understand these contextual manifestations. Like any practice, abstraction-generalization has no inherent value and derives its value from the worldview that enlivens the practice—our worldview allows for both unity and difference, and does not seek to dominate difference through abstraction-generalization. 1 This awareness is part of a critical epistemology of fear. Fisher has drawn on the philosopher-mystic Jiddu Krishnamurti for many years and the insights he brought to the phenomenological problems of knowing fear. For example, “Our minds are not used to seeing the total nature of fear and what is implied in it” (Krishnamurti 1991, p. 71); “when there is fear, the observer is part of that fear” (Krishnamurti 1991, p. 56); “As you can observe in yourself, you want to get rid of fear. All life is an escape from fear” (Krishnamurti 1991, p. 28). We ask: Is life to be understood as an escape from fear? Or as a journey to become intimate with the NIE (wherein fearlessness ensues)? Are we running away from fear, or towards the eternal that fills the liminal vacuum-void caused by the moments of shock from which fear emerges if we are not intimate with the eternal? 2 Purpura (2006), pp. 114, 118.

67 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

A decolonial critical theory approach has to be utilized for Fear Studies, not merely a (so-called) ‘value-neutral’ approach (e.g., functionalism-pragmatism) (see Fisher, Subba, Kumar, 2018, p. 19). Everything regarding how to know fear is epistemically-politically-cosmically charged in our view. We both have asserted a general Foucauldian framework is useful: “power/ knowledge/fear” (Fisher) and “power/knowledge/worldview” (Barnesmoore) and the productive power that emerges therein as fundamental ‘units’ for analysis—the productive power of worldview articulates the potentials for knowing fear, and the way that we come to know fear/power and the knowledge produced therein binds us in distinct power relations. In the Roman Christian worldview we come to know fear as a tool the genocidal old white man God uses to make us good, and this knowledge of fear binds us to power relations rooted in the use of fear to hierarchically dominate others under the pretension that we are making ‘the other’ good through said domination. There are healthier alternatives to this Roman Christian (and Abrahamic traditional) way(s) and the stories of divine genocide of Indigenous peoples and mass murder of children from which this way(s) emerges.1

Other than Fisher, one of the first scholars to acknowledge the specific importance of a “philosophy of fearlessness” per se in the academy is Singh (1996) (who happens to be in engineering and not taking an Abrahamic path2). Singh, following an East-West synthesis,3 conceives an integrated spiritual philosophy as part of a new consciousness movement (i.e., evolution of humanity) to enhance organizational life, planning, management and culture (Singh, 1996). Singh, in Barnesmoorean fashion with the emphasis on opening the mysterious pass to see from both the relative and eternal perspectives without either interfering with the other (see Cleary 1999, p. 108) speaks to the need for a humankind project4 within human development mentalities and operations in general (i.e., to the intention for conscious-cultural evolution towards the “experiences of wholeness” (Cajete 1994) and transcendence of the illusion of discrete biological individuality, therein that make virtuous relationships with the rest of our relations possible:

The human experience is vast, its potentials equally infinite. The past is truly endless and unfathomable, the future equally eternal.... It is this nothingness of the mind that is our only tool in the real world.... A modified philosophy and psychology are recommended for handling the organization—one that learns about the originless origins and acknowledges the breaths of higher planes of existence. The introduction of the metaphysical [i.e., ‘invisible’] into the operations of societies and organizations is the only great leap forward [i.e., (r)evolution of Conscious Evolution]. The rest of management sciences—that of planning and coordinating, while necessary—fade in

1 We are aware of a ‘perennial philosophy’ below in the esoteric mystical schools of thought within the Abrahamic traditions but we are referring here to the exoteric institutional forms. 2 He does, however, seem to take a very similar Indo-Aryan path towards hierarchical civilization through conflation of duality/nonduality from a supremacist perspective… 3 Singh relies heavily on the Hindu tradition and in particular the visionary integral yoga philosophy of Sri Aurobindo, and the western general systems theorists (e.g., Bertalanffy, Laszlo, etc.). 4 We use “humankind” for convenience, we remain aware of all life/beings, the ‘greater-than-human’ as equally valued in this work. Fear, more or less, impacts all beings.

68 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

contrast with the benefits of cogitating to a different music and science altogether. Hence, the total self-development (TSD) of the individual in the next step for organizations, where organizations can reap the benefits of the full human potential. Total quality management (TQM) has paved the path [but was insufficient itself]...to begin to adopt the philosophy of fearlessness and transcendentalism through TSD. (Singh 1996, p. 50)

Exciting in vision to us as Singh’s prophetic call is, his paper has no discussion or mention of “fearlessness” other than in the paper’s abstract (strangely enough). He focuses on fear (cites Deming’s principle of “elimination of fear” in Total Quality Management discourse), and prefers to talk about “courageous decisions” and “no fear,”1 yet, without in depth nuance of fearlessness developmentally and thus, misses a fear/fearlessness dialectic as in Fisher’s work. Equally, we see his model clearly lacks sensitivity to the issues of privation-supremacism that we address in this article below. Singh appears to posit privation as an opposite or polarity, as the other side of a dualism conception; rather than (as we prefer), as a privation of something that exists in and of itself (e.g., “fear void-vacuum” as labeled by Barnesmoore). He thus serves to naturalize artificially sustained privations like ‘evil’ (e.g., Singh (1996). He wrote, “willpower cannot exist without evil” etc., p. 51) )—he thus serves to grant eternal reality to that (e.g., “evil”) which is in truth a privation of eternal reality (e.g., Goodness). Typically, with best of intentions for progressive (if not spiritual) organizational and cultural evolution, Singh’s discussion, like most discussion in the West (especially) is inadequate and fear remains mis- and under-theorized dialectically with fearlessness (which is likewise inadequately conceptualized or defined beyond the simplistic literal definition of “without fear” or some variant2).

At this point, no systematic critique of Fisher’s fear/fearlessness dialectic, that he relies upon, has been developed. Herein, Barnesmoore argues for a foundational worldview critical review3 in which a point of departure and philosophy of courage/couragelessness (or fear/fearless courage) that is both dual and nondual (both unitary and sensitive to difference and irregularity) is posited as a clearer and perhaps ‘better’ (i.e., less likely to be interpreted in a manner that grants eternal reality to a privation through attribution of duality to a nondual reality) framing for understanding fear and one’s transition from fear to different forms of courage; and yet, it is intended as complementary to Fisher’s project of Fear Studies and ideally solving the “Fear Problem” (e.g., Fisher 2006), with potential of aiding the global “Fearlessness Movement” (e.g., Fisher 2007)4 that Fisher has studied and conceived historically.

We take the position generally that fear is under-theorized, across time, cultures and philosophies. hooks (2000) pronounced a similar sentiment, albeit, indirectly:

As we love, fear necessarily leaves....But we do fear and fear keeps us from trusting love. Cultures of domination rely on the cultivation of fear as a way to ensure

1 E.g., Singh (1996), p. 53. 2 A criticism we have of Deming’s TQM view re: fear and “elimination of fear.” 3 Eneyo (2019) has mentioned, but not yet developed, an ontological critique on Fisher’s philosophy of fearlessness (p. 45). 4 For e.g., see http://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com

69 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

obedience. In our society [in the West at least] we make much about love and say little about fear [and, even less about fearlessness]. (pp. 93-94)

The concern we have is not merely quantitative shortage of talking about fear but more importantly a qualitative and epistemic concern (to avert epistemic violence). This article rotates on the pivotal critique of our dominant knowledge re: fear and concomitantly on fearlessness and love—and, courage. We’re not out to prove the destructiveness of “dominant knowledge” forms per se, herein, as we’ve written lots about that elsewhere (though Barnesmoore is of course always out to destroy the dominant anything). Rather, we’ll nomadically explore the path(s) that emerge, not always in straight logical linearity, as we wander in search of wonder while investigating the topic. Henceforth, we’ll make sure we fall not into the saying little about fear as hooks reminds us, because such neglect (denial) furthers violence and oppression and is definitely not useful. That said, we also know there are times that being critical activists- philosophers ought to be ‘balanced’ and led by silence, by love, by walks in Nature, by listening to an owl at night, by playing on the beach, making art with children, and all kinds of arational experiences. Writing for a scholarly journal, unfortunately, tends to filter out the abject—denying often a good deal of our diverse inquiry modalities other than rational text—words—language. So too does the tyrannical discourse of “accessible writing” (Barnesmoore 2019a). We trust that this limitation is recognized for what it is, and that the study of fear is not ever totally reduced to that on the published page.

Essential to any good philosophy involving the relationships of fear/courage/fearlessness (fear/fearless courage) are the problematics of phenomenological inquiry and thinking critically through the experience of “fear” itself. Stepping inside his own experiences, Barnesmoore theorizes fear as the state of being which emerges from the liminal vacuum-void—created by moments of “shock-privation”1 and the potential for the privation of manifestation’s capacity to reflect the Nothing-Infinite Eternal (i.e., NIE and the sacred) that causes these moments of shock- privation—when the liminal-vacuum-void goes unfilled.2 It sets up a potent metaphor and imaginary for investigating fear. Coarsely speaking, in this reading, fear is not—more than it is not not (i.e., a thing). Fear is ‘nothing’ or no-thing3—perhaps, fear in this sense is only discovered by traces (or ruins) of its having ‘come and gone’ already before we perceive, conceive and ‘try’

1 The moment of fear when the cry of a bird disturbs the tranquility of a dark night. The moment of shock when a tree snaps in the wind. The moment of death. All of these are reflections of the same form manifest in different environments—‘as above, so below’. (Scott 1993) 2 See Barnesmoore (2019a) for the extended conversation among Barnesmoore, Four Arrows and Fisher in/by which Barnesmoore’s conception of fear in terms of a moment of shock and the liminal void-vacuum that emerges therein was developed. 3 Be it love or fear, Krishnamurti (1991) advised “seeing what it is not; through negation [we] come to the positive” (p. 115). This negative (methodology) philosophical way is a counter to the hegemonic modern positive (positivism) philosophies of the day in which “fear” is so easily and habitually represented as a neurobiological phenomenon as if this was the only correct meaning and definition. This no-thing-ness quality emphasis of the negative (that is, perhaps, not even a quality) is potentially analogous in some ways to Buddhist thought and non-dual philosophy re: the relative world/reality (as maya or illusion) from the perspective of the Absolute Reality. Also one could make connections to the new quantum physics findings where if reality is examined in the super-micro dimensions, all is energy and ‘things’ disappear into waves, movements and dynamics of no-thing-ness per se—that is, where nouns as descriptors fail to reflect accurately physical science findings beyond Newtonian physics representations. Fisher notes that “The Nothing” is creatively conceptualized within a register of fear (ontologically) in the children’s fantasy/drama 1984 movie Never Ending Story (written by Michael Ende, Directed by Wolfgang Petersen).

70 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

to manage it as a something. How can we use a thing like language to describe nothing? “The dao that can be spoken is not the eternal dao,” says, Lao Zi (1997). Dune’s sci-fi author Herbert (1965) enigmatically, perhaps, has articulated the trace of fear, the negative philosophical and theological idea of fear, in a famous dictum:

I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me. I will turn to see fear’s path. Where fear has gone, there will be nothing, only I will remain. [italics added for emphasis]

Fear is a Shadow?1 Fear is a nothing/something—dialectically, and ontologically(?)—a something to ponder. We’ll return to some of this conundrum of teasing out theoretical meanings and their implications later in the article. We also do not want to force readers or ourselves prematurely down only one path or imaginary when it comes to fear and understanding fear (‘fear’2)—so, we hold and invite open-ended ontologically transparent inquiry all the way through this discussion. This is particularly important when we consider maladies like perpetual terror and depression that emerge from hierarchical civilization’s weaponization of fear through artificially manufacturing liminal vacuum-voids and ensuring—through productive power—that these liminal vacuum-voids go unfilled and thus result in an artificial form of fear that is (seemingly) never transformed (by spirit) into fearlessness.

Fear-void-vacuum is metaphorically interesting, and some others have recognized this association as a way to understand fear (and hope) (e.g., Kubin 2015). We have not system- atically researched this association of terms and meanings for this inquiry, but that could be a useful trajectory for future research. Fear forms when the liminal void-vacuum opens; and, in our experience, that void either becomes filled with something that allows one to transition to a form of courage (or hope, or love) OR it remains unfilled and we become crippled in some way. Perhaps fear can also be filled with feelings like sadness or a sense of inadequacy that cause a transition to depression? If we were to try and provide an analytic definition we might argue that from fear there is the ‘naturalistic’ logic/dialectic of arising courage which requires fear, and equally arising fearlessness which requires spiritual transmutation of fear to fearless courage. Many others have made similar ontological claims: you can’t have courage without fear.3

1 Anyone familiar with the gnostic traditions, esoteric spiritual schools, etc. will recognize the association of “fear” and “shadow” (including, Carl Jung’s Shadow conception)—for e.g., Sorensen (1996/2014), wrote, “fear is a shadow” (i.e., like an illusion, or maya in many nondual philosophy traditions in the East). The summary of all these is, more or less, that fear—like sin—is without substance, as the “science of mind” philosophies tend to view—not unlike, Barnesmoore’s basic thesis of “fear void-vacuum.” “The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin…” (Gospel of Mary Magdalene n.d.). 2 ‘Fear’ (with ‘ marks) is a deconstruction method Fisher has played with for three decades for a similar purpose (e.g., Fisher 1995). Later, ‘fear’ became often associated with a late 20th century emergence of a “new species of fear” (e.g., McLaren 1995, p. 148) (see further explanation in Fisher 2003, p. 54). 3 See discussion in Fisher (2010), p. 140. Also, e.g., “... you must understand that there is no courage without fear.... Courage must have fear ... in order to have a place” (Lawson 2012, p. 19). The defining of “fear” in these cases is left unproblematized, uncritical, and status quo (aka, in our view, it is left tainted from the start). Following a kind of reality school (nondual pragmatism), a perversion exists within this potentially, that requires great caution—analogously, e.g., what some have espoused that there is metaphysical (dialectical) harmony of opposites (or complementarity) as a universal esoteric principle, and so they go so far as to claim that birth needs death, healing requires a hurt and/or love requires fear, Heaven requires Hell, God needs Satan, Good needs Evil, etc. Often Daoist philosophy of Yin/Yang is brought to bear on this type of interpretation to rationalize it as true, yet the Daoist philosophy of Yin/Yang only applies to truly dualistic phenomena. This can be easily twisted and used in unethical (if not egoic) ways to naturalize/legitimize nondual phenomena like the privation of good. Just as health requires a disease (illness).

71 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

“Viewing good and evil in dualistic terms leads us to accept evil as an eternal constituent of reality, and this leads us to accept the necessity (naturalization) of evil...”.

Fisher (2010) has examined this Western canon of “ontologically co-dependent” (p. 140) discourse on fear/courage and its problems and management. The 17th century philosopher Spinoza echoed this: “There is no hope without fear, and no fear without hope.”1 Barnesmoore would caution that, in interpreting Spinoza’s statement, we should understand hope in terms of faith rather than belief—faith is rooted in experience, whereas belief is rooted in the purported experience of others—the fearless hope/courage emerges from faith, from experiential intimacy with the NIE.2 Typically, such a discourse fails to problematize the very definition of “fear” (likely

But the universe of living things is designed, so it appears to us, to create health as intention not illness; to create a system not meant to hurt. This raises problematic teleological issues which we will address, in part, later in this article. What would a fearlessness philosophy posit on this ontological co-dependency positioning? 1 Cited in Chang (2006), p. 303. 2 Barnesmoore comments: Redemption, The Hope of Fools: “‘There never was much hope’… ‘Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.’” -Gandalf. We are but fools, both merry and grave, a band of vagabonds wandering through the blistering deserts that have been formed by the artificial light of Colonial Modernity (C. M. Worldview). To the naked eye the lands are parched and there is no hope that we will quench our thirst before the last drop of strength leaves our bones and we wither back into dust. Our feet bleed into the blistering earth, or once did before the many years of exile began to form cocoons of scar tissue that now serve as boots. We are often taken in by the great mirage; oases appear on the horizon only to be lost in the dry sands of time. Hope seems to be but the purview of arational madmen, and yet we continue our solemn procession. What is this fool’s hope that we search for? Is there redemption for a land that has long since forgotten the natural fire of life and the waters of heart-mind? Have we simply succumbed to madness? Foucault notes a trend, opposed to the contemporary conception of madness as the negative space beyond truth and reason, wherein Madness (i.e., arationality, which is often mis-described as irrationality by the archons of rationalist society) and Truth are intimate. “Madness was… proclaimed nearer to happiness and truth than reason itself” and indeed literature often sees the fool bringing the truth of matter into light—“to lovers he speaks of love, he teaches the truth about life to the young, and the sad reality of things to the proud, the insolent, and those who bear false witness” (Foucault 2006, p. 13). What is this truth and joy that has been rumored to lie in madness? Is it the fool’s hope? Given our ‘norm’ socialization in the dualistic dogma of Modernity (C. M. Worldview), it may be fruitful to engage this question from the perspective of the binary between fact-truth-reason and madness that has been established in our (‘western’) society. To begin, our society has lost the distinction between truth (which is without motion) and fact (which is truth, or a lack thereof in cases of absurdity, with motion). Reason is no longer founded upon the simplest and most universal ‘things’ as in Descartes, which is to say the Infinite Substance and its emanations as described by Spinoza, but instead upon facts (upon the sands of time). “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock [(the uncreated and its emanations)]: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house [(i.e. time, motion, etc.,)]; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.” [The Bible, KJV] The modernist subject, in losing the distinction between Truth (upon which reason must be founded) and fact (which reason has come to be founded, is then (most ironically in the context of this article) the ‘foolish’ person who builds their house upon the sands of time (upon facts, the manifest world of motion). As a result, the Modernist Mind labels the one who builds their house upon the rock (upon the uncreated and its emanations, which is to say Truth) as the fool. Truth and reason have been relegated to the sphere of madness, and ‘the rock’ is the abode of fools. The relationship between the fool, happiness and Truth is thus to be found in the seeming madness of knowing reality beyond the veil of sensory perception. The wise fool is only a fool in the eyes of those who lack eyes with which to see and in the ears of those who lack ears with which to hear, and yet the redemption of the deaf and blind is only a fools hope. We continue our solemn procession through the desert because we are fools, and though the shackled eyes of the modern slave paranoic mind see us as naught but mad(wo)men, without the fools hope would have long since died. Take heart in the foolishness of our hope, for it is precisely that foolishness—the incommensurability of Truth-Love with the present state of our material circumstances—which allows for the potential to transcend the seemingly (from a material, sensory perspective) insurmountable odds of our present circumstances. Redemption may seem like a foolish thing to hope for

72 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

tainted from the start) and only a ‘common’ discursive structure and the meaning of terms like fear established therein is utilized in such claims—all very dubious from our perspective. This complex dynamic relationship will be somewhat clarified throughout this article, and it will challenge most all prior and traditional views of this relationship. This pivotal point of interest in the problem of defining fear and its related ontology is given attention in this critique as elaboration on Fisher’s core work in this area. Some productive directives are brought to light via Barnesmoore’s experiential exploration of his own experiences of fear and the transition to eternal-courage (see later), while some things are left to their innate mysteriousness.

Beyond the more general goal of exploring fear through autoethnographic reflections on and observation of the inner energetic processes that occur when the liminal vacuum-void is formed by a moment of shock, when we begin our transition from fear to wherever the energies that fill the liminal vacuum-void take us, one purpose of this article is to offer an alternative (and/or complementary) proposition to the language we use to describe the fear/fearlessness1 dialectic (a la Fisher)—courage/couragelessness or fear/fearless courage(/truth/trust/love/wonder/etc.).

when considered from our sensory perspective, but that is what makes it possible. Fisher (2010) takes another (tactical) emancipatory view of “hope” which is better replaced by “fearlessness” (e.g., pp. 97, 178, 230, 240). 1 Although Fisher and Four Arrows (e.g., see Fisher 2018) often capitalize Fear and Fearlessness as constructs for a variety of reasons, we’ll not engage that strategy or complexity as it is not likely important to this inquiry.

73 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

From Barnesmoore’s perspective, things are a bit backwards with the fear/fearlessness dialectic, and this backwardness is indicative of a more general phenomena of treating forms of privation as self-subsistent realities—which they are not. Courage/couragelessness ought to replace or augment fear/fearlessness because it is fear (experientially conceptualized as a void), not courage, that is the ‘lessness’. The same can be said of good and evil—there is no such thing as evil, only good and its privation (a la Augustine/ Arendt).1 This is not to say that there are no phenomena (e.g. light/dark) that should be understood in dualistic terms because both sides are rooted in the eternal (dark-nothing/ light-infinite), but to say that there is great danger in attributing duality to nondual phenomena (e.g., good/evil) where only one side has its root in the eternal and the other side has its root in privation of the eternal.

What is this danger of attributing duality to nondual phenomena? Barnesmoore knows a rather vile old man who once told him that good and evil form a balance, and that taking political action in this world is unnecessary and perhaps unwise because there is already harmonious balance between good and evil. This markedly evil narration of reality, and the disgustingly privileged political nihilism that emerges therein, are made possible by attribution of an eternal quality to evil and the subsequent notion that (like other dualities) good and evil should be balanced. When we grant eternity to a privation through attribution of duality to a nondual reality (i.e., when we view a nondual reality like good and its privation in dualistic terms that attribute eternity to the privation) we come to naturalize (violently) the privation and thus seek to balance privation of the eternal with the eternal (rather than seeking to purge the privation of the eternal from manifestation as we purge a sickness from the body). Viewing good and evil in dualistic terms leads us to accept evil as an eternal constituent of reality, and this leads us to accept the necessity (naturalization) of evil (particularly the better of two evils…) and thus to try and balance good with evil. Viewing good and evil in nondual terms (as good and privation of the good) allows us to see evil as unnecessary and thus draws us into attempting to purge evil from this world.

Fisher has engaged over the years both the benefits and the limitations of a “point of departure theory” (a la Four Arrows2) and a dual/nondual perspective (a la Barnesmoore).3 Yet, Fisher has not considered until very recently the privation argumentation of Barnesmoore, Arendt and Augustine. This article is thus something of a first exploration along these ‘crooked paths of natural genius’ (cf. Blake 1793). On first glance Fisher ought to recognize the discursive backwards orientation and thus could re-write his formulation as fearlessness/fear to reflect the Barnesmoorean critique. This move however, is neither sufficient nor equivalent to courage/couragelessness or fear/fearless-courage/trust/truth/love/wonder as conceptualized by Barnesmoore.

We aim (above and below [Scott 1993]) to make critical distinctions between courage and fearlessness in a value-transparent, visible, non-domineering/anti-hegemonic (i.e., an ontolog-

1 Barnesmoore would add that the artificial form of privation from which evil emerges is created by hierarchical domination—by attempts to pull on the sprouts of human nature to ‘help them grow’. 2 Four Arrows (2016), pp. 5-8. 3 Fisher prefers a critical integral-holistic approach and yet embraces (in part) the nondual consciousness structure in his spectrum theory of fear (and fearlessness)—via his “fearless standpoint theory” (Fisher 2008).

74 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

ically transparent and thus non-violent manner (Barnesmoore 2018b). Achieving this aim requires a philosophical and cultural-historical-political critique that extends beyond merely dealing with the topic of fear/fearlessness within the framework established by the A.D. Worldview and the obfuscating narrations of presently recorded human history that emerge therein. Fisher, too, has always approached this larger critical context in his conceptualization of fear (‘fear’) and the trans-disciplinary study he calls fearology.1 Barnesmoore’s desire to provide an alternative to the fear/fearlessness dialectic is rooted in the potential discursive implications of describing a form of privation (be it evil or fear) with a term rather than as the privation of that which is deprived (i.e., evil should be ‘privation of the good’ and fear should be ‘privation of eternal-courage’, or at the very least fearlessness [which is surely not a privation2] should not be described in a fashion that could be interpreted as ‘privation of fear’).

According to Barnesmoore, Fisher (and Four Arrows) have done an excellent job engaging the problematics of the fear/fearlessness dialectic, thus, Barnesmoore’s proposed alterative is not meant as an assault on their underlying philosophical work as much as an address to the sickly nature of normative consciousness in this world and some of the underlying shifts in worldview that are necessary for making just human relationships with the rest of reality possible. The shift is necessitated by a flaw in hegemonic consciousness rather than a flaw in the work of Four Arrows and Fisher. In this case, the shift is to describing privations as privations of that which they deprive rather than as realities in and of themselves. Barnesmoore’s style leaves behind traditional uses of vague terms like courage itself and develops a unique ontologically transparent framework for use of such terms. Forms of courage are to be defined based on the energy that fills the liminal vacuum-void we associate with fear in the argumentation of this article, and when it is the eternal that fills the fear vacuum we transition to a form of eternal- courage that Barnesmoore takes as virtually synonymous with fearlessness (a la Four Arrows and Fisher). The courage that arises from anger must be differentiated from the courage that rises from being filled by the eternal. Obviously, as always, there is a bit of linguistic incoherence between what Barnesmoore means by courage and what Fisher means by courage, which will be sorted out (as much as such differences can and, or need to be sorted) below.

Fisher’s Fear Management3 Systems Theory, impressive in scope (sensitive to general unity) as it is in ferreting out the various forms in which the “spirit of fearlessness” manifests in the relative domain of reality called evolution and development (sensitive to the difference-irregularity of manifestation), Fisher has given “courage” (relatively) the least amount of attention (see Fisher 2010, pp. 136-42). Fisher (2010) notes how, too often, “courage and fearlessness are often conflated” in the literatures around the world and through time. He also admits:

1 Example (Fisher 2001). “Fearology” is defined in Fisher & Subba (2016), p. 158. 2 Fisher (2010) gives 15+ meanings of “fearlessness” from the diverse literatures, but also includes “fearlessness” in one of its meanings as a ‘virtue of virtues’ (see also Fisher 2018a, p. 1). 3 “Management” is not a noun nor equivalent to “managerialism” (a la Foucault)—it is an inherent self-regulation process of evolution itself.

75 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

More than all the other seven ways of fearlessness,1 courage has been studied and written about the most by far (in sacred or secular texts). From the earliest Western ancient philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas, many have written extensively on this topic... I won’t repeat or try to summarize here. This section will be brief. (p. 138)

It appears Fisher has been far less interested in analyzing the discourses and philosophies on courage in comparison to the discourses and philosophies on fear/fearlessness (or fearless). Barnesmoore sees a solution to this problem of conflating courage with fearlessness in developing a nuanced conception of the different forms of courage that emerge in relationship to the energy that fills the fear void-vacuum and thus allows us to transition from fear, including fearlessness (i.e. eternal-courage/trust/love/truth/ wonder /etc.). From this lacuna, this article is meant to conceptually and logically bring the different forms of courage to the foreground and more importantly to show the relationship of courage/couragelessness dialectic in relationship to the contextual critique that will support development of philosophies of fear/courage/fearlessness today and in the future.

Courage/couragelessness or fearless-courage/truth/love/trust/wonder/etc. may be more illustrative expressions of fear if we wish to highlight the nondual nature of phenomena like fear and evil. Fisher and Barnesmoore have published a dialogue on the value of the NIE construct and standpoint in terms of issues of fearism (philosophy) and hierarchical security in relation to new ideas about law and society (Fisher & Barnesmoore 2018, pp. 125-48). This article continues on that prior conversation and extends it into Barnesmoore’s proposed alternative (and/or complement) to the fear/ fearlessness dialectic.

When Barnesmoore says ‘eternal-courage’, it should be remembered that the eternal has many synonyms. Eternal-trust could also describe the state of being he describes as eternal- courage. So too could eternal-love. Eternal-truth and, Fearless-courage/truth/love/ wonder/trust. They all lead back to the same intimacy with the NIE, to the same state of being. “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao” (Lao Zi ,1997, p. 1, trans. Feng & English)—we can grasp at the state of being we are trying to describe though terms like fearlessness,2 eternal-courage, eternal-truth, eternal-love, eternal-trust, but in the end the state of being that we are trying to describe cannot be named—this state of being is all of these things, and it is nothing, 0-1. Perhaps the term courage and its history is too laden with discursive violence for courage to be the appropriate replacement; but whether we select courage, trust, truth, love, wonder or any other of the qualities by which we try to name the nameless the point of this paper is to identify the dangers of granting eternity to privations.

1 In Fisher (2010) he identifies: (1) no fear, (2) bravery and bravado, (4) courage(ous), (5) fear-less, (6) fearlessness, (7) fearless. 2 Fisher remarks: such a Barnesmoorean view is commensurable with much of my own view of “fearlessness” (and that of many others) but only so far as it goes when using this “state of being” assessment/framing. When using a stage or levels developmental (ontogenetic) assessment/framing, then the Barnesmoorean view is less accurate. My own developmental emphasis and imaginary of fearlessness is not meant as a way “to name the nameless” (as in a nondual perspective re: the Absolute). Ideally, we ought to use, integrally, both state and stage framings (ontologies, epistemologies) to understand fear/fearlessness but that complicates things immensely, beyond the scope of this article. There is merit to pursue the Barnesmoorean critique regardless of my own views because it provides a useful cautionary in general with ontological work on fear (or ‘fear’).

76 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

“When I fear the universe, I fear myself. When I love and am in awe of the universe, I love and am in awe of myself. Imagine then, the power when I align with the

universe.” Brown (2017, p. 11)

Distinctions: Courage and Fearlessness

[the Indigenous worldview:] A fearless trust in the universe1 comes from a continual cultivation of courage and generosity.... -Four Arrows2

I make a distinction between courage and fearlessness in that courage is the phenomenon that causes one to engage that which is causing the fear but with right learning once this happens a degree of fearlessness that incorporates a trust in the cosmos can eliminate the need for courage. –Four Arrows3

Barnesmoore is inspired to pursue thinking about courage/courageousness by both Fisher’s work and Four Arrows’ (aka Don Trent Jacobs) work on a theory of fear/courage/fearlessness (e.g., see Jacobs 1998; Fisher 2018; Four Arrows 2016). “Right learning,” as Four Arrows mentions in the quote above, requires more articulation and is of great interest to Barnesmoore. Four Arrows’ life/writing/teaching has positively motivated many students and others. His keen observations, and Indigenous perspective on fear/courage/fearlessness have led to powerfully insightful conversations. On one recent occasion he wrote to Barnesmoore,

The distinction between courage and fearlessness that I make is challenging. I do it only because I know many courageous people who burn out and no fearless ones. (personal communications, Four Arrows 2018)

Let’s begin (partially) to parse this distinction between courage and fearlessness in a value- transparent, visible, non-domineering/anti-hegemonic manner. This is an approach, based on the Indigenous (natural) and, in certain contexts, dual/nondual worldview(s)—essential to acknowledging that the politics of knowledge/power/fear (a la Foucault)4 that operates in dominant-domineering civilization is not inevitable (i.e., natural or necessary)—a point made also below in the problematization of defining fear in and of itself—rather, preferred in this article, fear is a natural moment of shock and ensuing liminal void-vacuum that signals the perceived5

1 Recently, Four Arrows has equivalently suggested “trust in the spirits” or “trust in the righteousness of action” could be alternative expressions for the same basic phenomena (personal communications, Four Arrows 2018). 2 Excerpt from Four Arrows (2016), p. 7. 3 Excerpt from Four Arrows (2013), p. 262. 4 Knowledge/power/fear is an analytical tool adopted from Fisher’s work and a Foucauldian perspective. 5 Perceived is quite important here as a racist might perceive the potential for privation of the eternal/sacred in seeing a person who is perceived as racially different from them and that perception might result in fear—this example allows us to see that the instinctual response of fear to the potential for privation of the eternal/sacred can lead us astray when we are dominated into ignorance—our instincts are the sprouts of our virtue, but they will lead us astray if we do not provide them with an environment that allows them to survive (hierarchically-culturally imposed ignorance of the sort that leads to racism is anathema to the survival of our instinctual sprouts of virtue as salt is anathema to the growth of plants in the soil and birth control is anathema to the growth of life in the womb).

77 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

potential for the eternal’s privation from manifestation (i.e., the potential for what would in dominant discourse be described as evil and what would in this discourse be described as privation of the good). Meng Zi (2A6) argues that the innate-natural instinct to save a child (i.e. the sacred) from falling into a well (i.e., being destroyed) that we feel in the moment of shock when we see the child teetering on the precipice is the sprout of human virtue—that instinct to protect the sacred is the eternal, and it flows into the liminal void-vacuum that is formed by the moment of shock when we see the child—when the void is filled in this way we transition effortlessly (wu-wei) to fearless-courage/truth/ trust/wonder/love—then the sprouts of our goodness grow—as we deepen the grove through the virtuous actions that effortlessly emerge the liminal void-vacuum--formed by a moment of shock, and is filled by instinct, it becomes easier for instinct (i.e., the eternal) to flow in and the sprouts get the sunlight-water-earth they need to grow—instinct grows to intuition. Through great effort we become effortlessly virtuous—the climax of silence is motion/the climax of motion is silence (Cleary 1991).

Fear, like evil, is too often understood within the confines and not so subtle violence of the dualistic conceptions of privation that are so prevalent in the Colonial-Modernist World(view). Such dualistic conceptions of privation obsessively seek to naturalize the evil that arises from the hierarchical-domineering states of consciousness that are produced by hierarchical civilization and its Artificial-Domineering Worldview (i.e. by the MegaMachine [Mumford 1967; Mumford 1970]). Framing fear, like evil, as privation serves to denaturalize colonial violence, genocide, slavery, etc. According to Barnesmoore, this point is starkly missing from Fear Law and Criminology which at times very clearly falls into such naturalization of hierarchical oppression as a quality of ‘human nature’1—the age old ploy of colonizing forces like the police and the nation state they serve is to excuse their oppressive behaviour through recourse to human nature arguments that seek to obfuscate the fact that hierarchical privations of the good arise from the privation of our goodly human nature that is caused by oppressive socialization within the MegaMachine [Mumford 1967, 1970], that is, hierarchical civilization (i.e., Fear’s Empire,2 as Fisher calls it; cf. the “Falling Empires” a la Bob Marley 1979).

As in Fisher’s work, there has to be a critical and skeptical philosophical analysis when it comes to such powerful terms and phenomena like fear that ascribe self-subsistent reality to privation (creating naturalization of fear—for example, many authors unquestionably propagate “fear is natural” discourse(s) without critical reflection on what might distinguish natural and artificial forms of fear). The reasons for this skepticism, for this shift to a more nuanced definition, to the different forms of courage/trust/love/truth/wonder/etc. that arise from the differing energies that can fill the fear vacuum-void are many (e.g., see how courage is often an insidious hidden disguise of fear3). One major danger lies in the long trajectory of dominant dualism within

1 E.g., see dialogue Fisher & Barnesmoore (2018), pp. 126, 129-30. Fisher would prefer “human condition” for this dynamic. See Michel Foucault Laughing Uproariously at Chomsky for Making Claims about ‘Human Nature’ to Substantiate His Views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0dM6j7pzQA 2 Fisher has his own understanding of the nature of “Fear’s Empire” but the term was originally used by Barber (2003). 3 This is a case Fisher makes often in his writing, and specifically based on the pseudo-fearless (bravado) hype that is easily commodified in today’s world (Fisher, 2015 ); he also draws upon Overstreet’s analysis (1951/71, Chpt. 7 “Dangerous Disguises”) of fear.

78 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

hierarchical philosophy, a dualism that is arguably (because it assimilates nondual realities like good and the privation of good into its domineering discursive structures), as Fisher agrees, colonizing (toxifying) of virtually everything and leads us to construct fear as fear-based itself.1 This dualism is therefore questionable as to any acumen about depictions of reality, fear itself, and courage etc. that arises (or may) from fear experiencing. We are not positing a dualistic relationship between fear and courage—we are problematizing the attribution of duality to a nondual (natural) phenomenon that ought instead to be described in terms of privation (a la Barnesmoore). Much of the philosophy of fear(ism) schools of thought tend to ignore this concern and posit what Fisher calls a fear-positivism2 (i.e., naturalizing of fear without often a deeply thought out ontological transparency and critical self-reflexivity).

“Perhaps the term ‘courage’ and its history is too laden with discursive violence3 to be reconstructed. But perhaps not... “.

We are curious what Moore & Gillette (1991) meant exactly by “Only a massive rebirth of courage in both men and women will rescue the world” (p. 4). They called for a more “mature masculine” on the planet. We are all for that. However, “massive” sounds like a quantity increase. That may seem logical and useful on first glance but philosophically it leaves out too much unasked about the qualitative shift in the kind of courage that may indeed ‘rescue the world.’ We return to Four Arrows’ point. ‘Burning out’ seems key in terms of practicality behind our discussion herein. It would be great to have much less burning out amongst activists, for example. What is this seeming courage that can burn out, and why is it that fearlessness (eternal-courage) cannot burn out?

The fearlessness (with courage) described by Four Arrows above, arguably, rises from intimacy with the Nothing-Infinite Eternal (NIE) and is thus itself eternal and does not by necessity burn out—a (radical) “trust in the cosmos [sic. the eternal]” (Four Arrows). Arguably, forms of courage that burn out arise when the fear vacuum is filled with an energy like an accompanying anger that lacks eternity. When we are intimate with the eternal it fills the liminal void-vacuum formed by the moment of shock that Barnesmoore understands as fear and we transition to eternal- courage (i.e. fearlessness). Our society is riddled with forms of courage that burn out because the A.D. Worldview and its Colonial Modernist incarnation destroy our intimacy with the NIE. We end up fearing the eternal—concomitant with an operative predominating dualism.4 A.D. Worldview and its thoughts, feelings, behaviours, conceptions of being, social structures, etc.— all of which it makes possible killing the sprouts5 of virtue (i.e., the instincts by which the eternal effortlessly flows into our thoughts, feelings, behaviours and conceptions of being)6 that exist in all of us, through pulling on them to help them grow (Meng Zi 2A2).7 It does this through systems

1 Fisher (2016). 2 For e.g., see Fisher & Subba (2016), pp. 47, 95. 3 Excerpt from Barnesmoore’s e-mail to Fisher (pers. comm., Feb. 21/19). 4 Fisher & Barnesmoore (2018). 5 Our instinctual sprouts grow into intuitive flowers. 6 See discussion on “Virtue Epistemology” (Daoist Virtue Epistemology) in Barnesmoore (2016), pp. 107-09. 7 Meng Zi (2016).

79 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

of oppression that try to make us good through traumatization via punishment and fear of punishment. The Colonial Modernist incarnation of the A.D. Worldview (sic. Scientism) further divides us from the eternal by denying the reality of realities beyond passing time and physical space.

Four Arrows suggests that a good place to look for forms of courage that burn out is in the embedded nature and role of fear itself in courage, and a worldview that supports such a lack (void-vacuum)—that is, as found, more or less, in the typical forms of bravery, bravado, courage(ous)ness. Krishnamurti marked this irony of typical Western courage(ous) imaginary and activism in practical terms as a cautionary and guide in order to really understanding fear:

It is not that you must be free from fear. The moment you try to free yourself from fear [by dualism; fear-based means, by privation of fear from say love], you create a resistance against fear. Resistance, in any form, does not end fear. What is needed, rather than running away or controlling or suppressing or any other resistance, is understanding fear; that means, watch it, learn about it, come directly into contact with it. We are to learn about fear, not how to escape from it, not how to resist it through courage [etc.]....1

Perhaps the term courage and its “Hero-Male” history2 is too laden with discursive violence to be reconstructed. But perhaps not; who is to say what worth it is to put forth reconstructions based on the intimacy of courage with NIE. Barnesmoore’s eternal-courage (cf. fearlessness) is a good potential and perhaps it is best seen as a ‘gift’ of Creation3 rather than a gift of human will. Perhaps it is the platform for a moral corrective referent needed today.

We need not worry over being brave or courageous—enough. Ideally, we need not fear (i.e., mistrust) the moment of shock (fear)4 or the liminal void-vacuum that emerges therein—indeed, we ought to focus our attention and connection in all such shock moments—as respecting:

(a) Shiva’s sacred (c)re(l)ationship with Brahman, (b) and embrace bliss in the rebirth that is possible through death, (c) and reject our subjugation to Vishnu, and the A. D. Worldview (d) and learn from fear in the liminal, as in any good ‘teaching moment’ (as it is) (e) the ever-present (always already) guidance-system of NIE and Natural-Indigenous Worldview(s) that arises from the order of nature—a reflection of the NIE—when

1 Cited in Chang (2006), p. 304. 2 Problems of typical courage, aligned with the Military/Sports/Industrial Complex and symbolic Hero-Male (especially in the West) have been discussed in relationship to Four Arrows’ life and work, see Fisher (2018a), p. 107. 3 Fisher refers to this as part of the South East Asian historical legacy of abhaya dãna (gift of fearlessness) tradition in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism (e.g., Fisher, 2010, pp. 174-75). 4 Fisher often teachings that we have an alternative: Rather than in the moment of shock paying attention only to the fear symptomatology of our body/mind systems, we re-identify a referential shift to paying attention to fearlessness. Thus, Fisher’s dictum: When fear arises, so then does fearlessness. The outcome of such an arising dialectic is dependent on what one gives their attention to (cf. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s philosophy).

80 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

untainted by the will-to-domination.

A good place to look for an alternative and corrective to the worldview that has infected our experience and understanding of fear is the NIE and Natural-Indigenous Worldview(s) that arise from the NIE and its reflection in the land-water-skies. For now, let’s leave this topic and move to the problematics of defining fear and fearlessness.

Problematics of Conceptualizing Fear/Fearlessness

To begin, the central danger of defining fear (a la Fisher), from Barnesmoore’s critical perspective, is reification (and normalization) of privation as a reality in and of itself. Although for most, defining fear is not a priority of interest and may seem overly complicated, abstract and academic, a critique often informally applied to Fisher’s work, there is a necessity to attend to what Fisher (2018b) has raised about pitfalls in defining fear. He argued (Fisher 2018b, 9:00-9:10) that mere standard dictionary or encyclopedic definitions of fear attempt to be: (1) value-neutral, (2) invisible and, (3) dominating/hegemonic. Nearly all popular self-help books, mainstream professional textbooks, and most academic publishing re: handling and managing fear, more or less, start on that standard footing of the dictionary definition—e.g., “fear is a feeling or emotion” and/or “fear is natural” (conflated with “fear is normal”)... etc.

This reductionistic neurobiological and individualistic psychologic framing of “fear” (as part of a Science and Biomedical hegemonic functionalism1 model) is not what Fisher’s fearology is in favor of, especially, when it dominates the discourses and knowledge/power/fear dynamics in an individual, group, community, society, or worldview as a whole. Fisher, with a critical eye for the hidden curriculum in the ‘norm’ and ‘standard,’ sees a decidedly fear-based dualism structuration underneath that current hegemony. He believes much of how fear is defined is fear-based (i.e., tainted) itself. This is not a good way to achieve accuracy about reality or fear and all that follows from fear experiencing and conceptualizations, theories and philosophies on fear. There’s so much trouble defining and making meaning of fear. This article is very interested in such a problematic and its roots. Perhaps privation cannot be defined in and of itself and must be defined as privation of something which is in and of itself. We explore how perhaps Fisher’s own framing of the fear/fearlessness dialectic may lead to exacerbation of the very problem of defining fear that he has been working to improve.

By value-neutral, Fisher (2018b) means that the common fear-definition(s) purports to describe rather than equally inscribe the diverse meanings of fear from multiple perspectives; by invisible, Fisher means that the definition relies silently upon the discursive structure (cosmological + ontological + epistemological assumptions) of the Colonial-Modernist incarnation of the A. D. Worldview (Barnesmoore); by domineering/hegemonic, Fisher means a politically-motivated wielding power over human subjectivities through expanding and constraining potentials for knowing and responding to fear, while disguising this influence under the cover of normalizing

1 In sociological theory, “functionalism” is a powerful way of thinking and valuing in complete opposition to “critical theory” traditions of analysis.

81 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

discourses of supposed value-neutrality and ‘objective reality’ (i.e., “scientific”) that rise from the Colonial-Modernist incarnation of the A. D. Worldview and its reduction of reality (via dualism and functionalism) to passing time and physical space. By domineering, Barnesmoore implies the hierarchical imposition of an artificially unitary and regular order of things that destroys the natural order of things in its many, different, irregular manifestations.

It should be noted that the issue of dominating/hegemonic definitions of fear (definitions that strive to exert power over those who accept them as real, that seek to impose an artificially unitary and regular order of things upon our conceptions of fear in its many, different, irregular manifestations) should be understood as necessary (i.e., normalized or naturalized) outcroppings of the A.D. Worldview. The trouble starts in that A.D. worldview by its assumed and defended definition of [human] nature as evil—and, argues sociologically and theologically, that ‘good order’ must be manufactured through hierarchical domination of our natural evil order (through traumatization via punishment and fear of punishment).

Hierarchical domination produces and permits fearmongering methodologies and policies that rarely are ‘seen through’ and/or challenged in regard to their pathologies (Post[most]Modern and Marxist ‘post[most]colonials’ are just as susceptible to this banally invisible embodiment of a hierarchical order of things as people like neoliberal capitalists who ascribe to an overtly colonial-imperial outlook). Therefore the A. D. Worldview (in contrast to the Natural-Indigenous Worldview that arises from the eternal order of the NIE that forms our shared essence), constructs definitions which are made to masquerade as value-neutral and to thus exert invisible cosmological and ontological power over the individual, who typically accepts them because they rise from a worldview that is centered on domination—and, fear-based (distorted, mistrustful) perceptions, thinking and actions. Thus self-described ‘postcolonial’ practitioners of paradigms like ‘therapeutic planning’ (Cornell AAP 2007) continue to embody the abusive, colonial order of things (virtue through traumatization via punishment and fear of punishment) that emerges from the A.D. Worldview in their educational praxis, for example, as it pertains to relationships with graduate students. No healthy, sane and sustainable society can function only on this privation/fear-based worldview and its tainted conceptualization and mis-understanding of fear itself (i.e. fear/trauma as the progenitor of human virtue and ‘efficiency’1).

1 Reflections from Barnesmoore’s doctoral Comprehensive Examinations (2018):

To start by letting of a bit of the ‘steam’ (stress…) that these examinations are intended to express, I want to note that I feel confident both Geddes and Mumford would have found this exercise rather repellant (Mumford in his late years more so than Geddes or early Mumford, but surely Geddes if such a structure were to have been imposed upon him)—that’s why both of them eschewed formal academic training. What sort of organic, insurgent, nomadic process of inquiry into the nature of reality could emerge from a tightly bounded three-month period? In a single day of writing? Geddes and Mumford would likely have recalled William James’ (1914) The Energies of Men, which Mumford (1944) argues may have been inspired by a meeting between James and Geddes. Mumford wrote, “Geddes was convinced that much of our education and much of our business enterprise was a deliberate stultification of man's real nature and his potential creativity. He pointed out that just as the brain itself contains a large number of dormant cells, apparently never called into use, so in our time a large part of the "energies of men" were never employed: the very narrowing of human functions in the specialized workday of both the factory drudge and the successful professional man depleted their effectiveness even for their narrow tasks. (It is very possible that William James's famous essay on "The Energies of Men" was written as a result of his meeting with Geddes in Edinburgh.) When Geddes considered his own extraordinary powers, he did not think of himself as a genius, but as a "normal man" fully awakened to all the possibilities of being alive” (Mumford 1944, p. ix). In The Energies of Men, James argues that humanity is endowed with abundant stores of natural energy that are called forth by need-crisis-fear (or meditative practice?) to form what is commonly known as ‘a second wind’. Like capitalism, the initiatory, ritualistic endeavor that is comprehensive

82 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

How can we avoid such damaging pitfalls in defining fear (which can taint fearlessness)? First, we ought not purport to a value-neutral perspective. We need to clearly explicate the underlying, less visible, worldview (cosmology + ontology) that informs our definition (i.e., the worldview whose values are inscribed upon fear through the process of definition)—we must be ontologically transparent (Barnesmoore 2018b). As we can see, the first two issues identified by Fisher—purportedly value-free and invisible definitions—are both to be treated by clearly stating our worldview. But there is a deeper issue. It is the particular worldview (Colonial-Modernist incarnation of the A. D. Worldview) and the will-to-domination that emerges from the privation of human nature therein, from which domineering/hegemonic definitions of fear rise, that render these definitions as domineering/hegemonic. Definitions are rendered as value-neutral and thus as bearing an invisible discursive structure because the person rendering the definition as value-neutral seeks (consciously or not) to hierarchically dominate others by inculcating and converting others into their worldview bias. Be it because they are truly deluded to the point of believing that their perspective on truth is the only true objective perspective on truth or because they seek to manufacture subjectivities that cohere with a worldview and associated discursive structures that make the subject more easily governable (i.e. more easily enslaved), in the end such individuals manifest an inherently supremacist relationship with reality that makes such purportedly value-free definitions (and the invisible discursive structures born therein) possible. What does this mean? It means that a (r)evolution of worldview will be required before value- transparent and visible definitions of fear will become possible—a revolution of worldview must always precede a true revolution in praxis (Barnesmoore 2017, 2018).

Herman’s (2008) reflections on the contemporary state of academic geography illustrates the ways in which the banal invisibility of worldview foments ontological violence (Blasser 2013) in the university:

The overall assumptions of modern rationality remain largely intact, and even geographers [and planners] doing ‘postcolonial’ studies remain largely unwilling to step out of their epistemological frameworks for a moment and consider different ways of understanding the world… The colonial mentality holds: the modern worldview is ‘real’ even if it is socially constructed; other worldviews are not. Thus the

examinations seeks to create an artificial sense of need-crisis-fear so as to artificially draw forth my ‘second winds’. I am meant to feel as though I am fighting for my survival so that my natural stores of energy—designed for functions ranging from the physical function of fighting off illness to the spiritual function of attaining elevated states of consciousness—can be drawn forth into this exercise. Fear of punishment if I fail these exams (i.e., fear of hierarchical domination) is to call forth my natural stores of abundant energy. Comprehensive examinations, then, are an expression of the form of the Artificial, Domineering Worldview (A.D. Worldview) (Four Arrows and Narvaez 2016; Barnesmoore 2018) —they seek to ‘help’ the sprouts of my intellectual development grow by pulling on them as the simple farmer from Song sought to help the sprouts in his field grow by pulling on them and only succeeded in killing the sprouts (Meng Zi 2016, 2A2). It is thus that I wrote the following words on the first day of this ritual of order through hierarchical domination: I’m feeling a bit tense. That’s the design. Oh the unhealthy nonsense of the University, the absurd assumptions about human nature that say pressure, stress, competition, hierarchical domination (in the form of grading) and other such artificial means of manufacturing ‘need’ and ‘urgency’ are necessary to make me work hard, the actual barrier to creative expression this paradigm forms—but here I sit, fingers playing the music of the English language across my keyboard, trying to simply ignore the absurdity of the disciplinary structure known as ‘comps’ (there is a certain sense of dread that flitters across many eyes when this term is raised) so that I can focus my attention on the research that I will be conducting in this artificially limited timeslot. I’m not feeling tense anymore… These systems of domination are much less effective when we know how they are trying to manipulate us. My feet are buried in the sacred gardens: “The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost” (Tolkien 1954).

83 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

critical turn has yet to decolonize the discipline truly and still leaves us in a disenchanted world without inherent values. (Herman 2008, p. 76)

Getting Things Backwards, Critiquing the Dialectic: Fear is the Privation, Not Fearlessness

We now have some critical contextual grounds and reference points for pursuing a potentially commensurable alternative to the Fisherian fear/fearlessness dialectic. And, just as fear has been problematized, so must we also problematize the dialectic Fisher offers to guide Fear Studies overall.

This article locates eternal-courage(/truth/love/trust/wonder/etc.), which arises from the intimacy with the NIE that is deprived when we enter the fear void-vacuum, on the mainstage in the pursuit of building of a philosophical foundation for individual and collective attainment of the fearlessness (eternal-courage) that doesn't by necessity ‘burn out’. Perhaps there is a ‘new way’ being forged, but Barnesmoore’s intention was simply to propose a linguistic shift (as cautionary) in the way that we describe the underlying framework that has been developed by Fisher and Four Arrows.

Four Arrows recently wrote to Barnesmoore, suggesting the corrective of courage/ couragelessness is not the best way to go—a basic fear/courage dialectic makes most sense:

From my vantage point, fear is the focus requiring respectful attention, not courage.... Courage without fear for its focus is not much to talk about. So courage and couragelessness would not rise to the importance of fear/courage [or fear/ fearlessness, as in Fisher’s dialectic focus]. (personal communication, Four Arrows 2018)

Barnesmoore, however, is not seeking to displace fear (couragelessness) as the focus of analysis—he is proposing that we shift the language we use (from fear to couragelessness/ trustlessness/truthlessness) to connote his experience of fear as privation rather than as something in and of itself. Fundamentally, to understand the Barnesmoorean critique here one has to grasp the notion of “eternal” as context (i.e., NIE) for everything. And, that when he posits “eternal-courage” as the reality of existence in essence, he could as well be positing the importance equally of eternal-trust, eternal-love, eternal-truth. They all lead back to the same intimacy with the NIE, a point made earlier but which deserves repetition.

Since Four Arrows’ earliest explorations of fear/courage, he has typically stood upon the philosophical and pragmatic grounds of a conviction to promote “becoming a connoisseur of Fear”1 and that is his focus not courage per se.2 Fisher has promoted this similarly, if not more

1 E.g., see Jacobs (1998), p. 156; see also Fisher (2018), for e.g., pp. 60-61, 142-43, 179-80. 2 However, “courage(ous)” has been critical to Four Arrows’ life and work as well; see for e.g., Fisher (2018a), Part III, Part IV.

84 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

implicitly, but he has focused on fearlessness per se not courage. Barnesmoore is not per se interested in shifting the focus away from fear towards courage but in shifting our ontology away from viewing fear as a thing in and of itself—in stead we ought to conceive fear as a privation (e.g., fear is the ‘lessness’). Perhaps the dialectic of courage/couragelessness and the ontology of fear implied therein is more useful and accurate to the situation of attempting to solve the Fear Problem and extend a vision of Fear Studies and the Fearlessness Movement.

Indeed, upon further reflection Four Arrows wrote to Barnesmoore saying:

… after my second read I decided that I agree that from a linguistic perspective referring to what I call "fearlessness" as "Fearless Courage" or fearless courageousness, may be a more accurate way to phrase the kind of letting go of the "need" to sustain courage to the[n] "trust in the universe" and the fearless, stressless continued commitment to action to which I refer. (Four Arrows pers. comm., 2019)

Fearless-courage/truth/love/trust/wonder/etc. is indeed stressless in that it is effortless in the sense of Daoism’s ‘effortless action’ (wu-wei1). (Lao Zi, 2011; Zhuang Zi, 1968; Zhuang Zi, 2004;

1 Zhuang Zi’s stories of Cook Ting and Khing the Carver provide beautiful illustrations of ‘effortless action’ (wu-wei), which seems to be synonymous with fearless-courage as described by Four Arrows in this final cited personal communication: “Cook Ting was cutting up an ox for Lord Wen-hui. As every touch of his hand, every heave of his shoulder, every move of his feet, every thrust of his knee — zip! zoop! He slithered the knife along with a zing, and all was in perfect rhythm, as though he were performing the dance of the Mulberry Grove or keeping time to the Ching-shou music. ‘Ah, this is marvelous!’ said Lord Wen-hui. ‘Imagine skill reaching such heights!’ Cook Ting laid down his knife and replied, ‘What I care about is the Way, which goes beyond skill. When I first began cutting up oxen, all I could see was the ox itself. After three years I no longer saw the whole ox. And now — now I go at it by spirit and don’t look with my eyes. Perception and understanding have come to a stop and spirit moves where it wants. I go along with the natural makeup, strike in the big hollows, guide the knife through the big openings, and following things as they are. So I never touch the smallest ligament or tendon, much less a main joint.’ ‘A good cook changes his knife once a year — because he cuts. A mediocre cook changes his knife once a month — because he hacks. I’ve had this knife of mine for nineteen years and I’ve cut up thousands of oxen with it, and yet the blade is as good as though it had just come from the grindstone. There are spaces between the joints, and the blade of the knife has really no thickness. If you insert what has no thickness into such spaces, then there’s plenty of room — more than enough for the blade to play about it. That’s why after nineteen years the blade of my knife is still as good as when it first came from the grindstone.’ ‘However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the difficulties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on what I’m doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest subtlety, until — flop! the whole thing comes apart like a clod of earth crumbling to the ground. I stand there holding the knife and look all around me, completely satisfied and reluctant to move on, and then I wipe off the knife and put it away.’ ‘Excellent!’ said Lord Wen-hui. ‘I have heard the words of Cook Ting and learned how to care for life!’” (Zhuang Zi 1968, pp. 50-51).

“Khing, the master carver, made a bell stand Of precious wood. When it was finished, All who saw it were astounded. They said it must be The work of spirits. The Prince of Lu said to the master carver: ‘What is your secret?’

Khing replied: ‘I am only a workman: I have no secret. There is only this: When I began to think about the work you Commanded

85 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Cleary 1991, 1999). Perhaps the notion of fearless-courage/trust/love/truth/wonder/etc. that has emerged from the friction between the fear/fearlessness and courage/couragelessness dialectics and the dialogues facilitated by this friction, as well as the ontology of fear implied by the term ‘fearless-courage/truth/love/trust/wonder/etc.’ that emerged from this friction, is more useful and accurate to the situation of attempting to solve the Fear Problem and extend a vision of ‘Fear’ Studies and the Fearlessness Movement (a la Fisher).

Fisher has brought in another complementary point to support the Barnesmoorean cautionary. The ethical imperative of Sardello (1999) when studying and teaching about fear, is that “in writing about fear [we ought]... to avoid generating more fear by doing so” (p. xvi). Fisher has supported this general Sardelloian cautionary because it is one major way to undermine the very dynamic of the “culture of fear” (Fisher 2010, p. xxvii)—and the cycle of fear/violence. By re- constructing the fear/fearlessness dialectic of Fisher, Barnesmoore’s courage/couragelessness brings with its ontological (and linguistic) corrective a movement to write less about fear—or at least, to less put the word fear all over. Couragelessness (sic. timidity) is maybe the better way to talk and write about fear in order to meet the criteria of Sardello’s ethic. However, this raises other issues like maybe we should only really focus on love/lovelessness?

I guarded my spirit, did not expend it On trifles, that were not to the point. I fasted in order to set My heart at rest. After three days fasting, I had forgotten gain and success. After five days I had forgotten praise or criticism. After seven days I had forgotten my body With all its limbs.’

‘By this time all thought of your Highness And of the court had faded away. All that might distract me from the work Had vanished. I was collected in the single thought Of the bell stand.’

‘Then I went to the forest To see the trees in their own natural state. When the right tree appeared before my eyes, The bell stand also appeared in it, clearly, beyond doubt. All I had to do was to put forth my hand and begin. If I had not met this particular tree There would have been No bell stand at all. What happened? My own collected thought Encountered the hidden potential in the wood; From this live encounter came the work Which you ascribe to the spirits.’

(Zhuang Zi 2004, pp. 127-128)

86 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

At times, Barnesmoore uses courage/trust/love/wonder or any other of the qualities which maintain intimacy with NIE—and, which are homologous to eternal-courage. Maybe this latter entanglement is best, as some would say for simplicity, kept to “love” as the answer to the world’s problems—as the answer to “fear.” However, the ontological transparency and critique in this article is to let go of simplified reification of virtues and qualities thereof in the absolute sense because trying to name the nameless has been warned about from the ancient sages onward in the history of philosophy. For purposes of this inquiry we’ll leave this larger discussion for another time and place.

References

Barber, B. (2003). Fear’s empire: War, terrorism, and democracy. NY: W. W. Norton & Co. Barnesmoore, L. R. (2019). Courage and couragelessness. Available from http://ubc.academia.edu/Barnesmoore. Barnesmoore, L. R. (2019a). The Tyranny of ‘Accessible Writing’ Discourses. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Barnesmoore 2019b, “Theorizing Fear as Liminal Void Vacuum.” Vancouver: University of British Columbia. https://www.academia.edu/38316846/Theorizing_Fear_as_Liminal_Void_Vacuum Barnesmoore, L. R. (2018). “Cyclical Return: Worldview”, Vancouver: Unviersity of British Columbia. Barnesmoore, L. R. (2018a). Comprehensive Examinations Concerning the Nature of Reality? Good Luck Examining That! Urban Planning, Human Nature Relations, Anarchism and Worldview. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/37341984/Comprehensive_Examinations_Concerning_the_Nature_of _Reality_Good_Luck_Examining_That_Urban_Planning_Human-Mature_Relations_Anarchism _and_Worldview Barnesmoore, L. R. (2018b) Conducting ontologically transparent research. Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia. Available from http://www.academia.edu/38093824/Conducting_Ontologically_Transparent_Research Barnesmoore, L. R. (2018c). Notes: On the under theorization of fear. Unpublished (pers. comm., Nov. 5). Barnesmoore, L. R. (2017). Conscious evolution, social development and environmental justice. Environment & Social Psychology 2(1): 11-25. Barnesmoore, L. R. (2016). Nomadic Explorations V2.1: Genesis, Eden and the Grail in Modernity. MA thesis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia. Barnesmoore, L. (2016a). Conscious vs mechanical evolution: Transcending biocentrist social ontologies. Environment and Social Psychology, 1(2), 104-14. Barnesmoore, L., & Fisher, R. M. (2019). FearTalk 2: Luke Barnesmoore & R. Michael Fisher. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYEQJzdkjjA Barnesmoore, L., & Fisher, R. M. (2019a). FearTalk 3: Luke Barnesmoore & R. Michael Fisher. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI3Gjn10t38 Blake, W. (1793). The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blake_Archive Blaser, M. (2013). Ontological Conflicts and the Stories of Peoples in Spite of Europe: Toward a Conversation on Political Ontology. Current Anthropology, 54(5), 547-68. Brown, A. M. (2017). Emergent strategy: Shaping change, changing worlds. Chico, CA: AK Press. Brown, N. O. (1958). Life against death: The psychoanalytical meaning of history. NY: Vintage. Cajete 1994, Look to the Mountain: An Ecology of Indigenous Education, Durango, CO: Kivaki Press. Cleary, T. (1991). The Secret of the Golden Flower, San Francisco: Harper One.

87 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Cornell AAP (2007). Leonie Sandercock: Where Strangers Become Neighbours: a Canadian Defense of Multiculturalism. Retrieved from https://aap.cornell.edu/news-events/leonie-sandercock-where- strangers-become-neighbours-canadian-defense-multiculturalism Devereux, G. (1967). From anxiety to method in the behavioral sciences. Paris: Mouton & Co. Eneyo, M. (2019). Philosophy of unity: Love as an ultimate unifier. Australia: Xlibris. Eneyo, M. (2018). Philosophy of fear: A move to overcoming negative fear. Australia: Xlibris. Ettinger, B. L. (2009). Fragilization and resistance. Studies in the Maternal 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.mamsie.bbk.ac.uk Fisher, R. M. (2019). Dynamic Kosmos identity: Holonic architecture. Unpublished paper. Fisher, R. M. (2019a). A new psychology: Fearlessness psychology. Retrieved from https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/a-new-psychology-fearlessness-psychology Fisher, R. M. (2018). How can we study and manage fear better. Unpublished paper. Fisher, R. M. (2018a). Fearless engagement of Four Arrows: The true story of an Indigenous-based social transformer. NY: Peter Lang. Fisher, R. M. (2018b). Developing a critical literacy on fear. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CXUkaFSdMA Fisher, R. M. (2017). Conceptualizing critically: Fearlessness philosophy. Retrieved from https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/conceptualizing-critically-fearlessness-philosophy Fisher, R. M. (2017a). Radical love—is it radical enough? International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 8(1), 261-81. Fisher, R. M. (2016). Ideological underpinnings of colonial domination in understanding fear itself. Technical Paper No. 60. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R. M. (2015). Educative criteria for using the terms “fearlessness” and “fearless.” Technical Paper No. 55. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R. M. (2012). Erich Fromm and universal humane experience: Application in the aesthetic domain for art educators. Technical Paper No. 39. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. 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. Fisher, R. M. (2008). Fearless standpoint theory: Origins of FMS-9 in Ken Wilber’s work. Technical Paper No. 31. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R. M. (2007). History of the Fearlessness Movement: An introduction. Technical Paper No. 22. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R. M. (2007a). Conceptualizing a fearlessness philosophy: Existential philosophy and a genealogy of Fear Management System-5. Technical Paper No. 23. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R. M. (2006). Invoking ‘Fear’ Studies. The Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 22(4), 39-71. Fisher, R. M. (2003). Fearless leadership in and out of the ‘Fear’ Matrix. Unpublished dissertation. Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia. Fisher, R. M. (2001). Fearology: Biography of an idea. Technical Paper No. 12. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R. M. (1995/2012). An introduction to defining ‘fear’: A spectrum approach. Technical Paper No. 1. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R. M., & Barnesmoore, L. (2018). Hierarchical security: Problem of fear of the eternal (Appendix 3). In R. M. Fisher, D. Subba & B. Maria Kumar, Fear, law and criminology: Critical issues applying the philosophy of fearism (pp. 125-48). Australia: Xlibris. Fisher, R. M., Subba, D., & Kumar, B. M. (2018). Fear, law and criminology: Critical issues in applying the philosophy of fearism. Australia: Xlibris. Fisher, R. M., & Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Australia: Xlibris. https://www3.nd.edu/~dnarvaez/documents/FourArrowsDarciaNarvaez2016ReclaimingIndigenou sworldview.pdf

88 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Four Arrows (aka Jacobs, D. T.) (2017). Point of departure: Returning to a more authentic worldview for education and survival. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Four Arrows (aka Jacobs, D. T.) (2013). From fear to fearlessness (religion/psychology and spirituality). In Four Arrows (Ed.), Teaching truly: A curriculum to Indigenize mainstream education (pp. 237-40). NY: Peter Lang. Four Arrows & Narvaez, D. (2016). Reclaiming our indigenous worldview: A more authentic baseline for social/ecological justice work in education. In N. McCrary & W. Ross (Eds.), Working for social justice inside and outside the classroom: A community of teachers, researchers, and activists (pp. 91-112). In J. Miller & L.D. Burns, Eds.), Social justice across contexts in education. NY: Peter Lang. Foucault, M. (2006). History of Madness, Jean Kafka (ed.), Murphy and Kafka (trans.), Routledge. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge & the discourse on language. (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. Gospel of Mary Magdalene (n.d.), http://gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm Haraway, D. (1998). Primate Visions. New York: Routledge. Herman, R. (2008). Reflections on the Importance of Indigenous Geography. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 32(3): 73-88. Herbert, F. (1965). Dune. Philadelphia, PA: Chilton. hooks, b. (2000). All about love. NY: William Morrow & Co. Jacobs, D. T. (1998). Primal awareness: A true story of survival, transformation, and awakening with the Rarámuri shamans of Mexico. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions. James, W. (1914). The Energies of Men. New York: Moffat, Yard & Co. Krishnamurti, J. (1991). Beyond violence. London: Victor Gollanz [originally published in 1973]. Kubin, J. (2015). Remember John Lennon: Fear fills the vacuum left by disappearing hope. Retrieved from https://www.commdiginews.com/life/remember-john-lennon-fear-fills-the-vacuum-left-by- disappearing-hope-53447/ Lao Zi 1997, Tao Te Ching, trans. Feng and English, New York: Vintage Lawson, D. (2012). Christian agnostic: The doubt Jesus requires his followers to have. AuthorHouse. Marley, B. (1979). Babylon System. Survival, Tuff Gong Studios, Universal-Island Records Ltd. Maslow, A. (1966). The psychology of science: A reconnaissance. NY: Harper & Row. McLaren, P. (with Gutierrez, K.) (1995). Pedagogies of dissent and transformation: A dialogue with Kris Gutierrez. In P. McLaren (Eds.), Critical pedagogy and predatory culture: Oppositional politics in a postmodern era (pp. 145-69). NY: Routledge. Meng Zi (2016). Mencius: A teaching translation [Trans. Robert Eno]. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~p374/Mengzi.pdf Moore, R., & Gillette, D. (1991). King, warrior, magician, lover: Rediscovering the archetypes of the mature masculine. New York: HarperCollins. Mumford, L. (1970). The Myth of the Machine: The Pentagon of Power, New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc. Mumford, L. (1967). The Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc. Mumford, L. (1944). “Introduction”, in Philip Boardman, Patrick Geddes, Maker of the Future, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Nicoll, M. (1989). Living time. Utrecht: Eureka Editions. Overstreet, B. W. (1951/71). Understanding fear in ourselves and others. NY: Harper & Row. Pieper, J. (2009). Leisure: The Basis of Culture. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press. Purpura, L. (2006). The space between. Ecotone, 2(1), 114-18. Sardello, R. (1999). Freeing the soul from fear. NY: Putnam Penguin. Scott, Sir. W. (1993). Hermetica: The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings which Contain Religious or Philosophic Teachings Ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

89 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Sorensen, S. (1996/2014). Unlimited visibility: Lessons and processes to improve your ‘I’ sight. Camarillo, CA: DeVorrs. Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear. Australia: Xlibris. Tolkien, J. R. R. (1954). The Fellowship of the Ring. NY: Allen & Unwin. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E. (1992). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 133-40. Warrior, R. (1989). Canaanites, cowboys and Indians: Deliverance, conquest and liberation theology today. Christianity and Crisis 49, 261-265. Wilber, K. (1980/82). The Atman Project: A transpersonal view of human development. Wheaton, IL: A Quest Book/The Theosophical Publishing House.

****

90 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Fake News, Paradigm of Fear & Sustainability: Research Report on Climate Fear(s)

Simon Bell United Kingdom

[Sen. Ed. Note: Bell prefers the title: “Fake News, Fear, Sustainability and the Paradigm of Fear: The Weaponization of Fear as a Lever for the Good?” ]

Abstract News manipulation is now a much-discussed reality of 21st century media ethics. Daniel Khaneman has identified that people have a tendency to respond to complex issues in a problematic manner – often making use of instincts (System 1 or S1) in knee jerk responses when a more rational (Systems 2 or S2) approach might be more appropriate. Simply put, human beings have a flawed process for problem structuring. In research carried out between 2015-16 with people engaged in and concerned with climate change, a series of interviews were undertaken concerning public attitudes to fear as a major force in the climate change debate. The results have paved the way to describing a process – the “paradigm of fear,” whereby fear can be weaponised in order to promote knee jerk responses to complex issues. The results of the research were published in a book (Formations of Terror) and a comic (Project Fear)1 but lasting questions remain to be addressed: Is fear weaponised by lobbyists in order to promote public response? If fear is weaponised to prompt populations to change, is such action ethical and responsible? Do climate change activists have a responsibility to orientate arguments to the rational and reflective rather than the instinctive and automatic? Describing the formations of terror as a device for fear management, this paper explores the ways in which fear can and is used by all sides in the climate change debate and raises questions about the ethics of social manipulation for even the best of causes.

Keywords: Weaponization of fear, Project, Community, Climate Change, Paradigm of Fear

(Much of this paper is drawn from and builds upon an earlier book. The fuller version of this paper is to be found in Bell, S. 2017. Formations of Terror. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars)

1 For more info: https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/operation-project-fear-the-open-university-uk

91 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

1. Introduction

This paper is the result of a thought experiment which resulted in a book. The core concern was fear and the its manipulation. Fearful headlines abound. Typing into Google: “examples of newspaper headlines which mention climate change” produced quite a few. Here is a very small sample: “Earth hotter now and getting hotter” “There is no planet B” “Arctic ocean getting warmer; seals vanish and icebergs melt” “It’s Scary, really Scary!” “We’re Screwed” Fear has always been with us as a species. It has been used in all kinds of ways. The concept fear as we understand it today has its origins in Greek mythology. Phobetor or Fear, the son of Hypnos (sleep) and brother of Morpheus (shape) and Phantasos (phantasy). Allegedly, these gods combined in sleep and dream to provide human beings with insights and also with terrors. This is an important point. Fear is often a function of an unconscious response. Notions of fear linked to shifting shape and phantasy remain as sustaining attributes of fear to this day. To start looking at fear, as we experience it, is to look at the ways in which fear is expressed at this time and in this place, in the case explored in this paper, the European culture of the early 21st century. This embeds our experience of fear in a cultural context, a cultural experience of fear. Barry Glassner, an American sociologist and former journalist, looked at the cultural phenomena of fear (Glassner, 1999/2010) in his extensively researched book The Culture of Fear. This book provides evidence of fear and (in the 10th anniversary edition) claims to have been responsible for popularly placing the term culture of fear in the national lexicon of the USA, (the subtitle of the book rather gives this away, Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things.) Glassner looks at fear in all kinds of places and conditions from transport to crime, from the young to illness, from ethnicity to drug use, from terrorism to the media. And it is the media where he finds the core of the fear issue; that is, in the biased selection, promotion and reporting of that which is to be feared. Glassner (1999/2010) reports that a great deal of the fear that is reported is bogus: “We waste tens of billions of dollars and person-hours every year on largely mythical hazards like road rage, on prison cells occupied by people who pose little or no danger to others, on programs designed to protect young people from dangers that few of them ever face, on compensation for victims of metaphorical illnesses, and on technology to make airline travel - which is already safer than other means of transportation - safer still.” (p. 341) In this argument, fear is promoted and extended by interest groups in order to achieve highly questionable specific ends. “The success of a scare depends not only on how well it is expressed

92 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

but also, as I have tried to suggest, on how well it expresses deeper cultural anxieties” (ibid., p. 348.) Glassner and others (e.g., Furedi, Gardner, and Bourke) identify how people are worked on by fear in a manner corresponding to what Khaneman (2011) classifies as two distinct systems of responses of which the first is Systems 1 (or S1) – an instinctive response. Fear literally gets into us, creates knee jerk responses and triggers a series of outcomes sometimes in a domino effect. The fact that fear can be induced by headlines and prominent contributions to social media means that it is possible to conclude that fear could to some extent be applied deliberately and strategically. His second system is a more thoughtful and rational, System 2 (or S2); these responses might provide respite from an S1 fear response but this is yet to be explored in a definitive and conclusive manner. How does a rational response emerge if the subject is already fearful? In my research I have explored the prevalence of fear in climate change discourse and, with a limited sample, asked some questions about contemporary responses to fear of climate change. At the outset of my research my questions were naively formed as follows: 1. Specifically regarding climate and environmental issues, are you aware of fear among those you meet in your work? 2. If so, what is the main cause of fear in the current environmental debate? 3. Do you think policy makers and populations more generally should be fearful? 4. Is there a problem with the way in which news in the environmental debate is broadcast to the general public? 5. Can a response of fear be useful with regard to complex problems? With Project Fear now an openly discoursed cultural artefact, the deliberative application of fear in public discourse leads to further questions. The responses to the five questions set out above may provide a basis for a more pointed analysis and an engagement with further strategic questions: • Is fear weaponised by lobbyists in order to promote public response? • If fear is weaponised to prompt populations to change, is such action ethical and responsible? • Do climate change activists have a responsibility to orientate arguments to the rational and reflective rather than the instinctive and automatic?

2. Methods This research arose from a thought experiment, in a sense it is an accidental outcome of a serendipitous sample which emerged from conversations with ‘climate issues aware’ people who have come to talk to me or (more generally) been contacted by me because I came across their names, of which sometimes they were suggested to me by others or because I happened to know them from my work in the field and thought that they might be able to provide me with insights. In some cases, they are people I ‘met upon the way’ as my questions advanced and my research pursued.

93 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Framing my conversations and engagements in a broadly identified Action Research format (there are many references but probably the most inspiring remains: Lewin, 1946), and taking due reference from the formative work of Robert Chambers in Participatory Action Research (Chambers, 2002), this serendipitous ‘transect walk’ through the population began on the 11th March 2015 and ended on the 8th December 2015. I communicated with people in the UK, Australia, USA and several countries in Europe including Sweden and Portugal. Many of those whom I spoke to were members of the International Sustainable Development Research Society, of which I was a member and Board Member. I must reiterate that this is not a scientifically assembled representative sample in any way. In all cases the voices are those of people who are interested in climate change as an issue and have thoughts on the matter. I wanted my ‘sample’ to be informed and interested, I also wanted them to be engaging and interesting. In every case the people represented here have answered most if not all the five questions. In around 25% of the cases I recorded the responses to the questions as an interview, the remaining 75% responded by email so I only have their written word. There are 43 responses in all. The breakdown of the respondents is shown in the Pie chart set out in Figure 1. The breakdown of the respondents to my questions by interview or questionnaire indicates that well over half of those I contacted were academics interested in or directly working with the issue of climate change. I was fortunate to meet and talk to many fascinating stakeholders in the climate change/climate fear debate. Those who responded to my request range from climate and environmental scientists, politicians, policy advisors, technologists, activists to those involved with the care of people either in terms of their psychology or religious needs. The responses to my questions were qualitatively assessed but the ‘Big’ question was: Question 1: “Specifically regarding climate and environmental issues, are you aware of fear among those you meet in your work?” Figure 2 shows the response to this question.

“My questions may be simplistic, even naïve. But, my key concern was to gain responses to provocative but brief questions.”

94 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Figure 1. Occupational breakdown of the respondents to my questions’

Y = YES

N = No

M = Maybe

Figure 2. Response to Question 1: ‘Are you aware of fear?’

95 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

83% of my sample were either sure or at least had a 50/50 view that fear relating to climate change is experienced in the people with whom they work and/or interact. The summative, qualitative observations for each question are set out in the next section.

3. Results and Discussion

I set out each question here and my summative assessment of the responses gathered. The full responses to each question are set out in the book noted at the beginning of this paper. Question 1. Specifically regarding climate and environmental issues, are you aware of fear among those you meet in your work?

“Fear could be a lever.” – Anon. respondent

As already noted above, overwhelmingly the response was ‘yes’ but two observations can be made regarding responses to this question. Early on in my interviewing I received a gentle ticking off from a notable expert in climate change. He chided me for the simplicity of my questions (allowing major leeway for variable interpretation on the part of those answering) and the commensurate danger of reducing the messiness and complexity of climate change to what might emerge as glib observations. Fair enough. My questions may be simplistic, even naïve. But, my key concern was to gain responses to provocative but brief questions. I did not want to muddy the water too much at the outset with complexity, to assume too much prior knowledge of my respondents or, alternatively assume climate change ignorance and therefore provide a copious back story. Brevity at the risk of simplicity seemed like my best strategy. The second point I would like to make links to the observation that fear can lead to states of denial and/or being inured to the effects of fear. For example, an academic response to subjective questions about fear can be one that allows the object of terror to be set to one side, projected onto a neutral and intellectual space and correspondingly seen as effectively belonging to someone else. But I wanted responses to questions about fear to be personally and even subjectively interpreted. In asking these questions I wanted, in so far as it was possible to elicit this personal response. Taking these points into account, a respondent to question one noted that fear could be used in order to encourage an outcome. Fear could be a lever. This point seems to be a very prevalent concept in Furedi’s 2006a and 2006b) as well as other authors going back to Davis’s (1999) Ecology of Fear (1999). Fear used, as a lever, is a means to induce an outcome. Davis’s notion of an ecology links in well with the need to understand the territory of fear which came out of the ideas of Marshall (2014) and this in turn links to ideas of a continuum of fear. In systemic terms, if there is a territory of fear then there is a boundary. Also, territory implies different viewpoints or worldviews about what the territory is. In one sense we are all constantly imposing our own personal views of what a territory is onto the social and physical landscape. A

96 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

boundary is rarely as fixed as a coastline or a cliff edge. More generally the boundary is ascribed by an individual or social agency (for e.g., an intellectual might suggest the boundary or limits of an idea whereas governments would agree the boundary or limits of a nation). Territory often means dispute with regard to the nature and place of boundary. Another continuum writ large was contained in another response. In this case the respondent’s concerns related to the fear consequences of global challenges to individual existence and threats to it that emerge in the overwhelming forces of the social reactions to the fear and experience of climate change. At the current time, and since early 2016, in the midst of a refugee crisis in Europe (somewhat forgotten in some circles due to the rising ‘noise’ around migrant concerns on the US border), the flood of refugees might prove to be a major social phenomenon of these times as a variety of crises begin to affect much of the industrialised world from Australia to the USA. First world fear or complacency and the resulting understandable knee-jerk-mind- sets of “go away” or: “not my problem” underlined by another of my respondents seems to me to be potentially potent elements for any kind of counter-fear project to be aware of. Finally, and deep down despite all this labelling and grounding of fear consequence, there remains the underlying namelessness of much that we fear and maybe a sense that this also relates to our personal responsibility to ourselves and to our world. Question 2. If so, what is the main cause of fear in the current environmental debate? With Question 2, as with all the responses to all five questions, there were a multiplicity of perspectives and assumptions operating in the responses. Here I try to draw out some of the major threads. Some of those questioned noted a reductive tendency in science and scholarship and equated this to an issue with fear. Reductionism can be fear-inducing because a reductionist approach applied when assessing complexity can lead to fragmented observations and a sense of bricolage and confusion with no central ‘point’ to hold the desperate elements of crisis together. To fragment and reduce in order to understand may not serve well as an aid to comprehension of complexity and may even add to the sense of overwhelming impenetrability and consequently fear. The more one tries to keep linked and related means of understanding separate the scarier things can appear. There is a sense that climate change scientists see themselves as winning the argument but still losing in the long run. The causes of fear and the demands of global society are just too numerous. The braided plait of control, reductionism and gratification via consumerism can mean that there is confusion over messages and uncertain consequences.

“The world is in great peril but no one is in charge...”. - Anon. Respondents

Perhaps the greatest fear alluded to is an existential projection of individual and civilizational fear – what can be referred to as individual and collective “immortality projects,” as Terror Management Theory predicts (e.g., Becker, 1973; Solomon, Greenberg & Pyszczynski, 2015). But

97 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

these projections are too vague, too distant, too poorly represented to the mindset which insists that we need to ‘do something now’. This all begs the question ‘who is in charge?’ Among many of my respondents there appeared to be a discernment that the world is in great peril but no one is in charge, or those in charge are risk loving and reckless and don’t give a damn. What do the policy makers and strategists make of fear? Is there fear at the highest levels or is this just an outcome reaction to tabloid scare stories? On the other hand, are our policy makers complacent as much of society appears to be? The summary of responses to Question 2 can be set out in a structured systems diagram, in this case I have attempted an influence diagram (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 An Influence Map of the Question 2 summary

The climate change fear influences some of the main themes of our culture that is the final destination for influence. Fear influences our sense of control, who is in charge and does it matter? It emphasises the value of reductive thinking, focusing on the detail and the points of importance, maybe while running scared of the bigger picture? Fear can be blanketed out by consumerism and the forgetfulness of the delights of 21st century living (for the affluent West). It also, quietly and cryptically affects our subliminal work on our immortality projects. How many artefacts of our world today are silent witnesses to our fear of extinction? Question 3. Do you think policy makers and populations more generally should be fearful? There are three broad responses from the three nominal groups identified in Question 1. The group of respondents that responded with a ‘No’ to Question 1 can be summarised as suggesting that fear is unhelpful and that other responses more akin to concern or agitation would be more useful. The selective application of fear emerged as an idea.

98 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

The ‘Maybe’ group came up with the ideas of a framework, in which fear is presented but usefully with counter measures. Means to alleviate. But beware ‘manufactured consent’ and the idea of the framework being in some way manipulated by social forces. Finally, the ‘Yes’ group came up with a range of ideas. People are not provided with or are poorly served by our capacity to deal with large, systemic crises. Our narrow and consumerist ‘way of life’ obviates our capacity to think more systemically and take on an extinction-level crisis. The spirit of Winston Churchill was evoked by one respondent as a politician who had the capacity to create the safe space in which great issues could be grasped. Innovation is a fear prospect as well as a ‘get out of gaol’ card. I set out the responses to Question 3 in Figure 4. Essentially there are three systems on display that relate in turn to each of the key responses from the ‘No, ‘Maybe’ and ‘Yes’ groups. The core of the diagram is the Policy Making system. This can be seen in a business as usual mode in the first system that sees Policy Making interacting, influencing and being influenced. To some extent policy influences and manages social consent and this in turn is the basis for our Frameworks of Engagement (democratic media for decision making). Such Frameworks ultimately impact back on the Policy Making System. In this diagram Policy Making, Consent and Frameworks are a discrete system. This is a system which is in regular use and on display just about all the time on 24-hour news networks and in the media more generally. A second business as usual system comprises Public Concern and Agitation impacting on and being affected by Policy Making. This comprises a second system. Outside the two business as usual systems lies the prospect of systemic coherence regarding climate change fear. This is in turn influencing and being influenced by the aspiration concept of Safe Space.

99 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Figure 4. Influence Diagram of Question 3 summary

“Climate change is accommodated and distorted in a ‘business as usual’ manner by the conventional media.”

Question 4. Is there a problem with the way in which news in the environmental debate is broadcast to the general public? The points made in response to this question ranged from what we might have expected (e.g. wickedness of deliberately distorted media messages and reprehensibility of distortion due to ignorance and corruption, cronyism of the media class and the political class) to more nuanced concerns (e.g. the division between the environment ‘out there’ and ‘us’, human frailty in terms of sifting what is important). Under all this lies the observation made at the outset, the naivety of naivety that there is or could be a “rational broadcast station with a brain that makes coherent choices in how it broadcasts to people who are on the receiving end.” Points made here are more about how climate change is accommodated and distorted in a ‘business as usual’ manner by the conventional media. Nothing new is happening but new alarms and problems are continuing to be treated in a conventional manner?

100 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

My diagram for Question 4 summary is a Rich Picture. The media is all around but there is the latent idea that messages are not being heard, the disastrous path of consumerist society is not being watched and those who can speak are either self or socially constrained in what they can and do say, and maybe how they phrase what they say. The image of the three unwise deaf, dumb and blind kids making their way to the cliff edge is possibly apt. What is missing is the noted: ‘mother ship’ of sensible guidance and news. This has resonance back to Question 3 for me, and the idea of a ‘safe place’ and the necessary systemic/ holistic understanding which it pre-supposes.

Figure 5. Rich Picture of Question 4 summary

Question 5. Can a response of fear be useful with regard to complex problems?

101 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

A minority considered fear unhelpful and our worst and reptilian response to issues. However, and surprising to me, overwhelmingly the experts and concerned individuals represented in my sample considered fear to be a useful thing but only given a wide range of provisos. Some thought that fear was a poor mobiliser, anger is a better catalyst. Others did see value in fear as a means to catalyse action but again there are obvious issues linked to this, issues of paralysis and an idea of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ fear—types of fear and the morality of fear application in a deliberative manner. The issue of how to apply fear in large groups emerged. The idea that fear could be used if it was used in a reasonable way and on the right targets, but some thought anxiety might be a better motivator. Fear as a property was argued to have value as an indicator of social health. Others considered ‘contained’ fear of value. I detected on several occasions a sense that we are only on the foothills of fear and that when it really kicks in, then we will see the value it can bring, including amplifying and accelerating change. Finally, fear can be a call to and emancipator of a response that can be related to courage. Trying to capture the main themes from the responses to Question 5, I set out my take in Figure 6 In this diagram I make use of the influence diagram approach again and return to the cycle of fear which was inspired by Bourke’s (2005) book on fear as manifest historically across culture.

Figure 6 Influence diagram, an update to the cycle of fear, summary of Question 5

The key ideas which emerge for me are fear reformulation or recurrence, scale and (as a late but interesting observation) courage. I represent these in the cycle diagram. Fear continues to

102 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

operate as the core of a system that cycles through conditions of weapon, target, emotion and state (a Paradigm of Fear). But the fear system is itself dynamic. There are points of departure where fear is transitional to a new system and a new formation. If the model appears a bit fixed, then the two polarities are added, on the one hand courage as one type of response to fear, possibly a response which can lead to new emergent properties (Black Swan outcomes?) which may again be part of the transition to a new manifestation of fear or the removal or reduction of the fear condition. On the other hand, fear can be seen as effective within different levels of scale, from the individual to the widest social context. Scale and courage are also linked via the fear system. The whole is dynamic, all aspects of the system are dynamic and can move. In this diagram I show the main fear system, what I can call the specific Formation of Terror (or FoT) as the outcome of some prior FoT. This in turn leads to further dynamics and subsequent transitions in the FoT.

“The problem with fear being applied, even for a “good” (define ‘good’ and open another barrel of issues) cause, requires strenuous review of stands on ethics and responsibility.”

4. Conclusions

To return to my original questions:

• Is fear weaponised by lobbyists in order to promote public response? • If fear is weaponised to prompt populations to change, is such action ethical and responsible? • Do climate change activists have a responsibility to orientate arguments to the rational and reflective rather than the instinctive and automatic?

The results from the interviews and questionnaire responses set out in this paper are inconclusive and speculative but provocative of further research questions. The first question might be better stated as ‘should’ fear be weaponised by lobbyists? From the responses set out here it would seem that there is a widespread acceptance of this (indeed it might be said to be very apparent in the work of Klein, Brown and others) but there are an equally wide range of provisos on such weaponization. It seems that the second questions pre-guesses this response. The problem with fear being applied, even for a “good” (define ‘good’ and open another barrel of issues) cause, requires strenuous review of stands on ethics and responsibility. It would seem that issues of morality and objectives also come into this debate and here further difficult questions arise relating to ‘who’, ‘how’ and ‘why’.

103 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Questions of responsibility and rationality exercise my respondents and some have noted the irresponsible use of fear and catastrophe by climate change activists as a means to attempt to elicit a response. The problem arising from this is, fear used in a Khaneman System 1, knee jerk, piece meal manner will probably result in unintended, systemic outcomes which may be more productive of further fear and System 1 fear consequences. The issue here relates to the understanding of the fear dynamic (i.e., fear system) – what I have described as the Formations of Terror and how they move. Simply put, when fear is invoked or encouraged in a System 1 manner, the consequences can snowball, we are not in rational territory. Figure 6 is one representation of this dynamic with a FoT being derived from previous FoT and being productive of future, unknown and unguessable FoT.

This paper is the result of a thought experiment and is research still in progress. My results to- date are the outcome of a limited and qualitatively assessed group of responses. The responses to questions relating to the manifestation of fear are varied and sometimes conflicting. One theme that emerged in response to several of the questions was the need for better thinking. There is not a clear lead on what this means but ideas around holistic, cybernetic or systemic thinking in order to address the complexity experienced might be one interpretation. Such a mode might be represented as an S3 (to add to Khaneman’s S1 and S2). Related to this was the value of containment and the psychological idea of a place where transition can be discussed in safety. Fearsome ideas are best addressed in a safe place, in a contained place. Society can tend to react with terror to the prospect of an overwhelming catastrophe but over time this results, unfortunately, in learned helplessness and a sense of vulnerability and then complacency and apathy; that is, until the next dose of fearful evidence emerges and a resulting terror formation. The cycle repeats, and in order to understand cyclic behaviour I would note (again) a systems, S3 approach could be helpful.

A further dynamic emerges, displayed in Figure 7. Here are two reinforcing cycles: one related to targets, emotions, states and the weapons of terror (what I have referred to as the Paradigm of Fear), the other to containment, addressing meaningful issues in meaningful ways, thinking up to scale and delivering systemic responses. One loop is negative and spirals down implying further fear and panic (i.e., FoT). The other loop offers hope, courage and the containment of the fear impulse/ weapon.

104 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Figure 7. Reinforcing systems diagrams of despair and hope

Endnote

In an attempt to popularise and make accessible the fear thinking which this Journal is also now bringing to proper scrutiny, I had produced a comic/ graphic novel presenting the main themes from the Formations of Terror book. The site offers a free copy of the novel, contains an animation and also some supplementary information. Visit https://www.open.edu/openlearn/project-fear to take a look.

References and Selected Bibliography Adolphs, R., 2013. The biology of fear. Current Biology, 23(2), 79–93. Aho, J., 2013. Book Review. Michael Laffan and Max Weiss (Eds.): Facing Fear: The History of an Emotion in Global Perspective. Human Studies, 36(1), 153–157. Appadurai, A., 2006. Fear of Small Numbers: An Essay on the Geography of Anger. Durham: Duke University Press.

105 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Appignanesi, L., 2005. Book Review. Fear : a Cultural History by Joanna Bourke. The Independent, (Friday 25th February), pp.6–8. Arendt, H., 1950. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harvest Books. Bauman, Z. 2006. Liquid Fear. Polity books, Cambridge. Becker, E., 2011. The Denial of Death. London: Souvenir Press. Bourke, J., 2005. Fear: a cultural history. London: Virago. Brown, L., 2011. World on the Edge. New York: W. W. Norton and Co. Burke, E., 1757. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. Oxford: ECCO-TCP/ Eighteenth Century Collections Online/ University of Oxford. Carson, R., 1962. Silent Spring., New York: Houghton Mifflin. Chambers, R. (2002) Participatory Workshops: A Sourcebook of 21 Sets of Ideas and Activities. London: Earthscan. Checkland, P. B., 1981. Systems thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: Wiley. Davis, M., 1999. Ecology of Fear. New York: Vintage Books. Diamond, J., 2013. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. Los Angeles: Penguin Books. Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H. & Holdren, J.P., 1977. Ecoscience: population, resources, environment. San Francisco: Freeman. Furedi, F., 2006a. Culture of Fear Revisited. London: Continuum International Publishing. —. 2006b. Politics of Fear: Beyond Left and Right. London: Continuum International Publishing. Gardner, D., 2008. The Science of Fear: Why We Fear the Things We Shouldn’t - and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger. New York: Dutton. Gladwell, M., 2000. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York: Little, Brown and Co. Glassner, B., 2010. The Culture of Fear. New York: Basic Book. Kahneman, D., 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. London: Penguin. Klein, N., 2015. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate. London: Penguin. Laffan, M. & Weiss, M. Eds., 2012. Facing Fear: the History of an Emotion in Global Perspective. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Lewin, K. (1946) Action Research and Minority Problems.’ Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46. Marshall, G., 2014. Don’t Even Think About It: Why our Brains are Wired to Ignore Climate Change. Bloomsbury, New York. McIntosh, A., 2008. Rekindling Community: Connecting People, Environment and Spirituality. Totnes, Devon: Green Books. Open University, 1999. Systems Thinking and Practice: A Primer / T551. Milton Keynes: Open University. Phillips, L., 2015. Austerity, Ecology and the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Alresford: Zero Books.

106 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Rapley, C.G. et al., 2014. TIME FOR CHANGE ? Climate Science Reconsidered. Available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/public- Reber, A., & Reber, E., 2001. Dictionary of Psychology. London: Penguin Books. Solomon, S., Greenberg, J. & Pyszczynski, T., 2015. The Worm at the Core: On the role of death in life. London: Penguin. Steimer, T., 2002. The Biology of Fear - and anxiety -related behaviours. Dialogues in Clinica Neuroscience, 4(3), 231–249. Sterman, J.D., 2011. Sustaining Sustainability: Creating a Systems Science in a Fragmented Academy and Polarized World. In Sustainability Science: The emerging paradigm and the urban environment. New York: Springer. Surowiecki, J., 2005. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter Than the Few. London: Abacus: New Edition. Taleb, N., 2008. The Black Swan. London: Penguin. Tuan, Y., 1979. Landscapes of Fear. New York: Pantheon Books. **** Simon Bell His signature work is on methodologies. He’s developed and applied a number of methodologies including: Multiview for information systems, Triple Task for group work and, most importantly Imagine. This last approach has been applied all over the world and in all kinds of contexts from internet 2 to community conflict; from London Olympic Legacy to the future of the UK Health Service. He has used Imagine in a collection of sustainable coastal community projects in Malta, Lebanon, Cyprus, Slovenia, Algeria and Spain. His work on Project Fear is a leading-edge exploration in fear management/education. Bayswater Institute and the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Faculty, Open University, UK. MK7 6AA Telephone 07818062177 E-Mail: [email protected]

****

107 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

108 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Fearontology Musings: Work in Progress

Osinakachi Akuma Kalu Nigeria

[Editor’s Note: The material for this article was originally created from a few blogs Kalu published on the Fearlessness Movement ning in the last year, and from rough notes he had sent to me for a potential article he wished to co-write but wasn’t going to get to it for some time, as many other life-priorities took over. I offered to put some ‘musings’ together playfully, and at times slightly edit things for him. He had final edit of the excerpts below, and submitted them to IJFS]

musing noun mus·ing | \ ˈmyü-ziŋ \ Definition of musing

MEDITATION, “My musing and writings on this issue do not come from the groves of academe.” — Herbert S. White

BEING OR REALITY OF FEAR

Is fear a noun or a verb?

When this question is asked most people tend towards their dictionary for meaning.

But that does not settle it. The fearologist goes beyond the dictionary or lexicon meaning to

109 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

answering this question. This doesn’t mean the dictionary stand is wrong but only suffices for grammar or etymological sake.

In fearological inquiry as has been on the traditional metaphysical understanding of being, since fear is a “being”, it is both a noun and a verb. When you use it as a noun it is

SUBSTANTIV, but when you use it as a verb it is AKTIV. When it is a noun we are talking about ‘ontology’ (SUBSTANTIV). When it is a verb AKTIV it is ‘knowledge’.

Two Primary Categories of Being

1. Potency- it is possible being (fear). Imagined fear or fear thought of. It can be remote

or proximate.

2. Act – A developed reality. Fear present.

WITH THIS, WE HAVE FINALLY DISCOVERED FEARONTOLOGY.

FEARONTOLOGY ______SEARCH FOR THE ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATION OF FEAR

Abstract No matter where one looks at the vast literature on fear, there is often some effort by authors to clearly understand what fear is all about. However, their definitions typically lack the depth of philosophical rigor required to truly understand fear. This initiative generally seems not to be isolated to a particular subject or field of inquiry. However, the ontological foundation of fear seems to remain hazy or somewhat difficult for many to understand. Many writing, even the most serious authors on fear, have often not looked at or reflected in this ontological direction. Through a new fearological inquiry, we suggest (as co-authors) that one would realize that since fear is a being and it exists, that knowing its ontological foundation will help in crafting a better understanding of what fear is. And, as such, this ought to foster a more rigorous, accurate and healthier teaching, analysis, facilitation and management of fear. Indicators in many domains of contemporary human existence point to the need for better ways of fear management/education. The ontological ground of fear is what this paper seeks to unravel. We claim the result of such an investigation, uniquely fearological in approach,

110 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

provides a more sufficient way to know the ground of the being fear and the dynamics of how it relates to humans and/or how humans relate to being fear.

WIKIPEDIA: In philosophical ontology, ontic (from the Greek ὄν, genitive ὄντος: "of that which is") is physical, real, or factual existence.

The ontological refers to the Being of a particular being.1 To understand the ontological nature of fear requires knowing its ontic (what it can or does) ground. What makes fear different from other emotions is its ontic nature. To do this, one needs to understand what emotion is and then simply decides which type of emotion it is and how it operates in reality.

The emotions are the paradigmatic example of an affective dimension in our lives.2

Another word for emotions is passions. This word derives from the Greek pathos, via the

Latin passio, which means to be suffering. This suffering does not primarily designate pain but passivity, that there is something to which one is exposed, something that happens to one. Aristotle distinguishes between praxis and pathos, that is, between influencing and being influenced,3 respectively. The emotions, in this use, are not considered as being self-initiated but as something one, in a sense, receives.4

One cannot choose an emotion just like that. If one is sad or afraid, one cannot simply choose to have a different emotion that one is more comfortable with. We can influence our emotions in a more indirect way, for example, by placing ourselves in a situation where a certain emotion normally arises. We also possess a certain ability to get

1 “Heidegger’s Fundamental Ontology”, https://grattoncourses.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/ontological-vs.pdf 2 Lars SvendsonPhilosophy of fear, p.40 3Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, Princeton, nj, 1985, 323b1ff. See also Metafysikken, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, 1002b15 4Robert C. Solomon, ‘On the Passivity of the Passions’, in Not Passion’s Slave: Emotions and Choice, Oxford, 2003

111 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

rid of an emotion or to suppress it. And we can certainly work on our own emotional life and shape our emotional dispositions. It is clear, however, that our emotions will not necessarily conform to our will.1

“Heidegger also seems to be of the opinion that fear is an emotion

that will be concealing...”.

To experience a given emotion is to experience being in a particular situation to which one has been abandoned. All human perception is conditioned by the situation in which perception takes place, and this situation, quite fundamentally, has an emotional dimension. We can say that the emotion is a condition for something being able to convey meaning in a situation. For an object to be able to appear as frightening, amusing or boring, the situation where the object is encountered must be one with a corresponding emotional potential. Heidegger’s used the term Befindlichkeit to explain how fear demonstrates human life.2 This describes how it is to find oneself in this world. To find oneself in the world is to be exposed in the world, to experience the world as a place that contains meaningful and indifferent objects. This ‘being in the world’ has a basically emotional nature; it is the emotions that enable certain objects to be perceived as meaningful and that, strictly speaking, make participation in the world possible.

For Heidegger, we primarily regard objects around us as things to be used, although at times we are notified that these things are “unusable, contradictory or threatening.”3 This

1Lars Svendson Philosophy of fear, p.41 2Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, p. 141 3 Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, p.137

112 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

is only possible because our being-in-the-world is constituted in such a manner that things can affect us in such a way. It is this being-in-the-world that enables anything to be experienced at all as threatening. For Heidegger, emotions are not purely subjective but rather “the fundamental way in which we are outside ourselves.”1 In explaining this he asserted

An emotion is the way we find ourselves in our relation to beings and thus at the same time in our relation to ourselves; the way we are attuned in relation to beings that we are not and to beings that we are. In the emotion the state opens and holds itself open, in which we have dealings with objects, ourselves and human beings. The emotion is itself this open state . . . Here it is important to realise that the emotion has the nature of opening and holding open, and that it therefore can be concealing2.

An emotion gives you access to yourself and to the outside world, but precisely because emotions are able to open up these subjects in such a way, they can also conceal, and thus give you an inadequate view of both yourself and the world. Heidegger also seems to be of the opinion that fear is an emotion that will be concealing:

We become afraid in the face of this or that particular being that threatens us in this or that particular respect. Fear in the face of something is also in each case a fear for something in particular. Because fear possesses this trait of being ‘fear in the face of’ and ‘fear for’, he who fears and is afraid is captive to the mood in which he finds himself. Striving to rescue himself from this particular thing, he becomes unsure of everything else and completely ‘loses his head’3.

For Heidegger, that which is feared is something that has not yet been realized, something that exists as a menacing possibility that is drawing closer. The feared object

1Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche: Erster Band , Pfullingen, 1989 , p.119 2Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche: Erster Band , p.62 3Martin Heidegger, ‘Was istMetaphysik?’, in Wegmarken, GesamtausgabeBd, ix (Frankfurt am Main, 1976), p. 111, and evans- experientialism.freewebspace.com/heidegger5a.htm.

113 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

“radiates harmfulness.”1 The crucial thing is that this harmfulness has not yet been realized, and that there is a possibility that it will not do so. Fear is thus closely associated with uncertainty. This uncertainty can be described as a basic feature of human existence. In fear, a fundamental determination of my being is revealed, that is, the fact that I am exposed.2At the same time as fear uncovers something about me, it also conceals me from myself.

Heidegger also stressed on the nowness of fear – that one is locked in a situation and thereby loses something of one’s freedom. He writes: “The temporality of fear is an expectant, present-making forgetting.”3 That which is forgotten is “one’s self”, or rather, “one’s own options.”

The point is that the future, as a field of possibilities, is restricted since one directs one’s attention solely at the present threat. One loses oneself since one’s attention is concentrated on what is threatening. Fear is a kind of emotion, but not all emotions that brings tenseness, are fear. Svendson influenced by Heidegger believed that, an emotion such as fear is a way of being present in the world. On the other hand, a world you fear is a place where you can never feel completely at home.4

“Fear is not self-aware.”

According to Heidegger, one loses sight of one’s possibilities in fear. Jean-Paul

Sartre, for his part, stressed that “It is by throwing myself at my own possibilities that I

1Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, p. 140 2Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, p. 141 3 Martin Heidegger, on Sein und Zeit, p. 342 asserDie Zeitlichkeit der Furchtisteingewärtigendgegenwärtigendes Vergessen’. 4 Lars Svendsen, A Philosophy of Fear, p.43

114 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

escape fear.”1 Sartre has an understanding of emotions in general and of fear in particular that differs considerably from that of Heidegger. For Sartre, each emotion has in a certain sense been chosen, and thus it can never eliminate the field of possibilities. Sartre considers emotions as intentional strategies. According to him, emotions are an attempt to change the world via a “magical transformation” of it. The analysis of fear is a clear example of this, since fear is claimed to be an intentional strategy where the subject attempts to remove – in a ‘magical’ way – an object. It ought to be fairly obvious that this magic is not very often successful, as an object seldom disappears simply because one fears it. When this magical strategy fails to work, the subject resorts to flight. Fear, then, is not the cause of flight, as is normally asserted, and flight is not the cause of fear either, as the James-Lange theory proposes – flight is rather a substitution for a fear that does not affect the magical transformation intended by the subject.2

Emotions are unreflected, according to Sartre, and by that he means that they take place without the objects of awareness.3 In fear, awareness is directed towards the object of fear and not towards fear as such. Fear is not self-aware. For that reason, emotions are also something that – despite being the intentional products of the subject – partially elude conscious control. We cannot simply transport ourselves into a particular emotion by wanting to have it. On the contrary, the emotions ‘capture’ awareness and make it

‘passive’.62 And thus we would appear to be in the same situation as that described by

Heidegger above, where fear shuts out one’s own possibilities. Sartre, however, seems to believe that the awareness of fear being precisely the own, intentional product of the subject

1Jean-Paul Sartre, Erfaringer med de Andre, trans. DagØsterberg and Halvor Roll, Oslo, 1980, p. 146 2Jean-Paul Sartre, The Emotions: Outline of a Theory, trans. B.Frechtman, New York, 1986, p. 63 3Jean-Paul Sartre, The Emotions: Outline of a Theory, trans. B. Frechtman, New York, 1986, p. 52

115 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

opens up the possibility that one can regain a certain amount of control over it. Because the feeling of fear has been chosen, it can also be deselected in favour of other possibilities. For

Sartre believes that we ourselves decide what meaning we are to ascribe everything that surrounds us in existence and how we are to allow it to influence us. In relation to fear, this means that I myself choose to form an ego that fears various things and events. I could, however, have chosen to form a different ego that would have related to my surroundings in a different way. This is why Fisher believes that when fear comes in, fearlessness also emerges.1

It can be useful to describe emotions as habits. By that I do not mean to denaturalize the emotions completely, just to stress that our emotional apparatus is malleable.2 Emotions are not simply something ‘given’, but something that can be cultivated and changed.3 Habits can, generally speaking, be described as acquired responses that people are normally unaware of, but which they can be made aware of. Habits are based on repetition of an ability. Can one then say that fear is a habit and as such a virtuous one? Or a vice? In the light of Dario Composta, Virtue in genetal and is defined as habitus operativus bonus simpliciter.4 Habitus from the “habere” (Greek “hexis” from “echo”), which means something different from being (“esse” Greek “einai”): one has if one is; to have is a possession coming after being. Therefore not given by nature, but which is necessary to acquire. From this point of view of habitus meaning an accident, it becomes a secunda natura, a second being. From this of view, the habitus rest between “nature” physis5 and act. The

1 cf. R. Michael Fisher, The Worlds Fearlessness Teachings, 52-55 2 Lars Svendsen, A Philosophy of Fear, p.45 3 Lars Svendsen, A Philosophy of Fear, p.45 4 Dario Composta, Moral Philosophy and Social Ethics, Rome, Urban University Press, 1987, p.53 5 From the Greek Phusikosmeaning physical properties in nature or even nature

116 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

habitus perfects being and inclines it into action. Operativus, virtue is not a habitus speculativus but a habitus operativus. It is not theoretical but that which spur human into action.1 Bonus

Simpliciter virtue is that which makes human good unlike other certain capacities that is good in certain ways.2

However, as we continue, this ontological discovery, one would understand where fear falls; into whether it is a virtuous emotion or an amoral emotion in its nature....

This question forms the basis of the ontological foundation of fear in reality. The question could be rephrase thus, is fear inherent in human? Most people (which I was part of) believe that fear is inherent in human. But that may not be true. The argument is always thus, since fear is a kind of emotion and humans are emotive being, they must possess this emotion fear in them. If that is to be the case, there shouldn’t be anything like a fear factor. Although it is the mind that dictates fear, some of its postulation may not be true. A practical example is that what A fears is different from what B fears. That is to say that the operation of the mind determines what is fearful. Hence one cannot in a stricter sense say that there are objects of fear. Because what most people call objects of fear or factors of fear in the real sense are not fear related reality. They exist in the way they are supposed to exist. Some of them do not possess the capacity of “intentionality”3 and as such cannot intend to project fear. It is the human mind that dictates which action is fearful. Hence fear does not have an empirical locus except for consciousness. It is an ‘emotion’ and as such different from ‘feeling’. As an

1 Dario Composta, Moral Philosophy and Social Ethics, p.54 2 Dario Composta, Moral Philosophy and Social Ethics, p.55 3 Intentionality refers to the notion that consciousness is consciousness of something (cf. Phenomenology, Existentialism and Some Contemporary Philosophers by Stephen Azubuike Oguji)

117 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

emotion, it is experienced by humans alone. Since the three core ways existential consciousness is being looked at, a) every individual is responsible for his life, b) fulfilling life is possible. Implying that one can live an authentic life and c) life is decimated by human choice. Building on this backdrop, one can say that fearlessness is possible and is a matter of choice. [to be continued... ]

****

Osinakachi Akuma Kalu A young Nigerian thinker, philosophy major, and international award-winner and speaker on fearism. As administrator and philosopher, he specializes the study of fear and the recent branch of philosophy of fearism. He is founder of The Penlords and TAFFDs and Coordinator of Fearism Studies in Africa. To his credit are two books: Conquering the Beast Fear: A philosophical Cum Psychological Approach (2016) and The First Stage of the Fearologist (2017); [email protected].

118 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Each Issue of IJFS will include a unique selected bibliography with important references to the field of Fear Studies. This is my pick (as Senior Ed.) but all are encouraged to send in to me your picks for the next issues. Note: an R. Michael Fisher archive is now available in open source at The University of Calgary and for the first time in 30 years of publishing on fear, my works (published and unpublished) are going to be made available in one location. Over the next months I’ll add more to the collection. To access the first download of 93 technical and yellow papers between 1995-2019 go to https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/100121/discover?filtertype=author&filter_relational_operat or=equals&filter=Fisher%2C+R.+M.

Kalu, O. A. (2017). The first stage of the fearologist. AmazonCreateSpace.

“After my perception of fear had been modified by my meeting and reading the works of the fearological elders, I began the search for my own definition of fear.... I define fear as an emotive process that exists between an object and a subject, which influences the subject’s decision either to improve, remain stagnant or degenerate in existence.” (pp. 57-58)

Four Arrows (aka Jacobs, D. T.) (2016). Point of departure: Returning to a more authentic worldview for education and survival. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

“... Indigenous worldview perspectives [include]: 1. Using trance to assure images actually change beliefs and brain wiring. 2. Changing dominant culture’s aversion to fear and learning to use it to practice a virtue and to turn courage into fearlessness.” (p. 27)

Fisher, R. M. (2018). ‘Fear’ Studies, 12 years later: Progress and barriers. Technical Paper No. 74. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

“For better or worse, the post-9/11 era has been a meta-context for me to deepen inquiry into the nature of the shaping forces of so-called civilization. Mass media and a variety of fearmongers from the powerful elites to just about anyone have assaulted human sensibilities for intelligence and wisdom like never before in history—or so it seems.” (p. 7)

Fisher, R. M. (2018). R. Michael Fisher’s engagements with fearism: An annotated bibliography. Technical Paper No. 78. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

Since late 2014 and first connection with Desh Subba, Fisher has written works engaging Subba’s work and co-authoring with Subba and others. These are arranged chronologically and annotated for research convenience.

119 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

Fisher, R. M. (2018). Fearless engagement of Four Arrows: The true story of an Indigenous- based social transformer. NY: Peter Lang.

“Clearly, I am not some neutral biographer. Four Arrows [aka Dr. D. T. Jacobs] knew that from the start. I put a whole lot more of myself into this biography because of the fearlessness lens I brought to it as an expert in this area for many years. Four Arrows gave me full reins to write what I wanted as long as I didn’t mess around with ‘facts’ of historical biographical truth. This book is exciting to release to the world. May it become an integral part of a critical emancipatory holistic curriculum for the 21st century. Such progressive ideas and ethical vision receive far too little attention today in an era of increasing conservative educational philosophy in our schooling systems and public life in general. To view the four min. book video trailer go to: https://vimeo.com/265228513.”

Fisher, R. M. (2019). “Resistance to Fear Understanding” – teaching video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfVNktnN3v4

Dr. R. Michael Fisher, founder and Director of The Fearology Institute takes on the topic of "Why so much resistance to better understanding fear (and fearology)?" He introduces Terror Management Theory (TMT ; see Wikipedia) as providing an existentialist explanation for resistance to fear (and death fear). He reads quotes from Bonaro Overstreet on fear from the 1950s as one of the best books available on the topic and from TMT in Sedikides et al. (2004) chapter "Nostalgia: Conceptual issues and existential functions" in J. Greenberg et al. (Eds.), "Handbook of experimental existential psychology."

An eminent woman, western contemporary ethical philosopher, takes on the central topic of fear:

Nussbaum, M. C. (2012). The new religious intolerance: Overcoming the politics of fear in an anxious age. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.

“Fear is implicated in most bad behavior in the area of religion.” (p. 21)

Nussbaum, M. C. (2018). The monarchy of fear: A philosopher looks at our political crisis. NY: Simon & Schuster.

“As I examined my own fear, it gradually dawned on me that fear was the issue, a nebulous and multiform fear suffusing US society.” (p. x)

Subba, D., & Fisher, R. M. (2018). Abstract expressionism under the lens of fearism. International Scientific Conference Proceedings, “The Destinies of Abstract Expressionism: For the Centenary of Guy de Montalur’s Birth” (pp. 230-49). Moscow, Russia, Oct. 10-13, 2018.

“... the co-authors make a case that (r)evolution like any big change is a deeply subjective, arational and irrational process and often quite a terrifying experience for many, and may in itself be fear-driven.... [from a] fearism perspective/lens.... Their view of “fear” however is a radically transdisciplinary and post-postmodern initiative in comparison to earlier analyses of motivations behind art.” (from Abstract, p. 230)

Eneyo, M. B. (2018). Philosophy of fear: A move to overcoming negative fear. Australia: Xlibris.

120 International Journal of Fear Studies 1(1) 2019

“Hence, it is not just becoming fearless, but how well have you been able to use the fearless approach in addressing existential issues. This shall be a discussion for another book since this book is basically developed to deal with the challenges of fear and its management in the contemporary society.... as a model we would see that there is no time that there would be no fear in the entire territory of fear.” (p. 33)

121