Philosophy of Fearism A Primer

Philosophy
of Fearism
A Primer
R. Mich a el Fisher
Copyright © 2022 by R. Michael Fisher.
ISBN: Softcover 978-1-6698-3107-5

eBook 978-1-6698-3106-8
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the copyright owner.
Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and
such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.
Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.
Print information available on the last page.
Rev. date: 08/17/2022
Cover art and design by R. M. Fisher
To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris
AU TFN: 1 800 844 927 (Toll Free inside Australia)
AU Local: (02) 8310 8187 (+61 2 8310 8187 from outside Australia)
www.Xlibris.com.au
Orders@Xlibris.com.au
747454
Contents
Preface��ix
Acknowledgements��xiii
Introduction: W
hat’s in A Name?, Why Focus on Fear(ism)?��1
Time For A Primer on Philosophy of Fearism��1

The Search for Fear-Plus��3
Fearism Complicates Fear��7
Risking to Care Deeply for Fear��11
History and People Behind The Philosophy of Fearism��16
Fearism: A Mixed History��16

Fisherian Fearism��17
Subbaian Fearism��21
Subbaian-Fisherian Fearism��22
An Intellectual Movement in Philosophy and Beyond��26
Founders: From Dyad to the Triad��28

Desh Subba (1965-)��29
R. Michael Fisher (1952-)��31
Samuel Nathan Gillian Jr. (1939 – 2016)��32
Fearism Theory��49
What Philosophers Would Think of Fearism?��50

A Few Fearists’ Imperatives��52
A Few Theories Within Fearism��54
Some Philosophical Assumptions and Principles��56
Some Critics of Fearism��58
Fearist’s Quotes��71
Brief Glossary��81
Basic References��85
Index��93
Dedicated to...
the wise ones who have known fear, by turning toward

the phenomenon rather than away
Preface
W here does anyone go for a quick resource guide to

the study of fear? And, I mean from a fearist’s perspective—
that is, a guide for the entire human-fear relationship dynamic, from
the evolutionary past of our species to the present, and thinking
simultaneously about the future.
What guide on fear is available that takes into account the individual
dynamics and collective dynamics of fear in a unified systems theory
and holistic approach? What guide on fear takes us into the expanding
and creative inquiry into the nature of the language we use about fear?
And what guide is there on fear that asks the reader to be not merely
a consumer of information about fear but takes the reader into a deep
and wide inquiry into the nature of the gifts and problems with fear?
And what guide starts off with the premise that ‘we have all been mis-
educated about fear’ and we have to deal with this problem as well as
just learning better how to cope with our fears? What guide says we can
heal around our fears and transform the very nature of fear and who we
are? What guide is available on Fear Management and Fear Education
that is transdisciplinary? And what guide is there on the philosophy
of Fearism, that is one of the latest and potentially most important
discoveries and a movement arising from critical reflection on fear in
the late 20th-early 21st century?
The answer: there is no such guide on fear study available, as this
unique little book. That is precisely the gap in human knowledge that
I was attempting to fill when I entered the project of putting together
this guide—hereafter, called the Primer. Of course, the motivational
pivot point for my interest in philosophy of fear has been a long one but
only with meeting Desh Subba in late 2014 did a ‘miracle’ happen—
whereby, I knew that something had transformed in the world and in
fear itself. That is the backstory behind this book and this particular
subject, Subba coined as “philosophy of Fearism.”
DixE
Readers will find in the Primer a good introduction and overview of
the kind of work going on with this new philosophy of Fearism and why
it developed and how it developed, including a good insight into the
people behind this movement. This ought to invite a collaboration of
all those interested to pursue further not just “what is fear?” but “where
is fear located?” This ought to invite speculation and research into
the relationship between fearism and terrorism. And, there are many
other purposes for which I wrote this as encouragement to embrace the
positive and negative aspects of the phenomenon—so basic to human
activity—as fear—as Fear.
The philosophy of Fearism often gives fear a capital ‘F.’ It also is
a philosophy that extends beyond other philosophies and gives fear an
‘ism’ suffix. And further, this is a philosophy that continually makes
up critical vocabulary of new terms like fearstory, fearology, feariatry
and fearanalysis. The invention of new terms to build a critical literacy
is critical to a good Fear Studies—an argument I have made from the
beginning of late 1989, when I took on the Fear Problem as my central
scholarly and professional pursuit. In the Primer you will learn of others
who have joined in on this search for a better understanding of the
nature and role of fear. There are pioneers to read about, most of whom
many people outside the school of the philosophy of Fearism will not
have ever heard about. Readers are invited to participate and critique
this new philosophy and be part of the movement. There is lots of room
for individuated expression and creativity in exploring fear and fearism.
So on that platform of co-investigation, open-mindedness, holistic
and critical thinking, I look forward to hearing from those readers
and their adventures with fear—and the questions and insights that
have been stirred up from the Primer. This is a book that would serve
any good course anywhere for adults wanting to study fear. The time
has come for such a study—the world and its struggles with so many
crises and so much excess fear is a sign for something to change. The
philosophy of Fearism is that change to the very nature of fear, Fear,
and it is the forum for bringing about a new consciousness in humanity.
Such lofty goals of course are often slow to come, but that doesn’t
mean we ought not be waiting for a miracle to come. I have chosen this
DxE
path of learning because I find the richness of fear study beyond any
other topic I know. It grows and intrigues me and yes, at times it scares
me (in a good way)—that is what education is all about. Please consider
the risk—to know fear better than you have ever before and could even
imagine. Welcome to the philosophy of Fearism.
DxiE
Acknowledgements
A cknowledgements are for me the way to express

gratitude of the gifts that come to one’s life. I have been blessed
with a particular set of circumstances, not always great, but that some
part of me had the resilience to overcome the limitations often and
pursue truth no matter what. I thank the teachers of all kinds for
assisting me. And, there have been many who know why I journeyed on
the road of fearlessness in late 1989. There are many who have left that
journey with me. I have found many new allies. I acknowledge the gift
of fear(lessness) is not easy to always hold with dignity, especially as this
often corrupted world distracts even the most committed souls of truth.
But let me say, more directly, all those whom I cite in the References of
this Primer they are so valuable to my intellectual growth in particular of
which this little book would not be here if it were not for their input in just a
certain way it appeared and taught me, when it did. And, I also acknowledge,
as a fear critic, I am challenging upon each and every one of these teachers
as well. I believe that is a gift itself, to think critically and independently
but also to join that thinking in collaborations. So, I give gratitude to all
my collaborators over the years, people like Barbara Bickel, my wife and
life-partner, and the likes of Desh Subba, B. Maria Kumar especially since
2014, who have truly put their care and money where their mouth is, to stand
honestly in order to support my fearwork in real terms. When one sacrifices
like they have, that is the true gift of generosity and courage. I have required
their grants to keep working the long hours, and not have to be scrambling
to make a living doing other things I don’t want to do to pay the bills. They
ensured much of my fearism work has been published in books.
And, finally, the gift of Creation herself has been an inspiration—as
I have sought to understand her ways, her laws, her invitations. She has
provided me and I have attempted to give back the possibilities for a
better future for all, through studying her Defense Intelligence—what
is basically, Fear.
DxiiiE
Introduction
W
hat’s in A Name?,
Why Focus on Fear(ism)?
S omething happened in our collective fearstory. Once

upon a time, there was no fear, then too much fear, then some
visionary people said, “We have a problem; we need to make fear itself
central to understanding the human condition.” There were three such
critical thinking people in the latter part of the 20th century, and into
the 21st century, who spoke of this passionate conviction. They came to
philosophize on fear in fresh ways that stretched the imagination and
brought about a new rigor to the study of fear. Independently, across the
world, they each initiated this fearwork from their own unique lifestyles
and perspectives but basically arrived at similar conclusions. In 2014
two of them met online to start an East-West dialogue, the third of
them had been very sick and aged, and died in 2016. For the first time
in the history of humanity, there are now core resources available, led in
part by these three philosophers, which can guide us from our state of
too much toxic fear. How each of these philosophers approached their
own fear-analysis is unique and that is part of a new transformative
fearstory yet to be fully told.
Time For A Primer on Philosophy of Fearism
Fear is a mystery. It is as vast as the universe....It

constitutes an impact on human tendency, action,
and activities. Human activities done knowingly and
unknowingly are heading towards it....I have made my
D1E
attempt to theorise fear, an important issue...a new
philosophy....The fearist perspective is a new dimension
to look at life and the world....The purpose behind
fearism [and fearists’ work] is to conduct continuous
research, investigation, and invention in order to make
life more comfortable. - Desh Subba [1]
[T]here is no life without fear....Reality or life in an

overwhelmingly powerful and dangerous universe is
truly terrifying for each and every one of us each and
every second that we are alive.
- Samuel N. Gillian Jr. [2]
Fearism, is all about fear. Yet, that is only the surface meaning of
this fast spreading concept, social philosophy, and the international
intellectual movement behind it. The more one studies the diverse
meanings of fearism, including populist notions while others are more
academic, it is evident that fear is equally all about fear(ism). Later in
the Primer, a distinction is made between Fisher’s original “fearism”
sociocultural (political) ideology designation and Subba’s original
“fearism” as a psycho-philosophical (literary) designation. By 2014,
both authors came to join their versions of fearism as a solidarity, and
with an addendum “theory of fearism” [3] overall which synthesizes their
different views. The latter, points to a range of critical-holistic thinking
about the nature and role of fear in ways that are often postmodern [4]
and newly minted, so as to better understand fear, the self, society and
how to (re-)design a better future for all.
D2E R. Michael Fisher

Frequently Asked Question(s): (1). Does fearism and the fearist
practitioner see fear as negative and bad? No. But it all depends
on how you define fear because fear can turn pathological and
that is a toxic form which negatively impacts life. (2). So, is fear
then just ‘neutral’ and what matters is whether humans manage
it well or badly? No. Of course it matters what humans are
thinking and doing with the fear experience—and, that will
have consequences. However, fearists do not generally start from
a premise that fear (or anything) is neutral. Again, it depends
on the lens and knowledge that one relies upon and its rigor or
lack thereof, which shapes the outcome of all fear management
but also shapes the form of fear itself. Fear cannot be neutral
because it is co-evolving in/with complex systems and no system
is neutral. We cannot conclude “this is fear” (e.g., it is neutral
or just natural) absolutely; because fear is a mystery and we are
continually learning what it is and what we are—in relationship
contiguously with fear (and ‘fear’ and fearism). (3). Aren’t you
making fear more complex than it needs to be? No. (4). Aren’t
you trying to turn all reality into only fear as a final cause? No.
However, we are centralizing fear a co-mutual causal vector in
all things human and their relations (and theoretically, including
all living things, and beyond).
The Search for Fear-Plus
The resources are now available to change our minds

about fear (and ‘fear’)....The dry words...are mere
abstractions that can never fully touch the reality of
what is behind them. -R. Michael Fisher [5]
Philosophy of Fearism D3E

Bringing a critical philosophical temperament to an everyday subject
like “fear” that is so ordinary, is bound to make us think twice about what
we know and assume to be true. It turns out there is not full agreement
on the definition or meaning of fear that exists without controversy
and alternatives. However, for most fear theorists and practitioners,
they are happy enough with the basic standard definition(s), and will
often these days, as one colleague wrote they are focusing on the new
literature on “emotion” and how it is made, where their fearwork “is
being informed by neuroscience more than anything right now” [6]. In
contradistinction, most of the fearists have not gone in that direction
and have built an entire New Fear Vocabulary to incorporate creative
and expanded notions of fear and its variant expressions [7]. Some fear
experts have validated this importance of the power of words: “The trick
for handling fear is contained in one of the most powerful tools humans
have—language” for it has the power to deconstruct and reconstruct
worlds [8]. A partial Glossary at the end of this Primer serves as an
indicator of the richness of thought re: vocabulary.
In my own career, like the philosopher William James, I’ve sought
to change and challenge what the ‘normal’ perception is and to change
myself in the process. James wrote that “Philosophical study means
the habit of always seeking an alternative, of not taking the usual for
granted, of making conventionalities fluid again, of imagining foreign
states of mind [consciousness]” [9]. The opening of one’s mind is a plus;
and I seek a fear-plus (something more) than what we are pre-given as
‘standard’ and ‘normal’ information, knowledge or even wisdom.
Some believe we know enough about fear already, we just need
to apply it and things will improve. That may be true but I think the
problems we face today and our understanding of fear are not yet at the
place of a comfortable agreement that we know enough about them.
My research shows there are enormous contradictions in the body of
fear knowledge and teachings. Most fearists are keen to understand
why the contradictions exist. With the Jamesian investigative plus-ing
in mind, I have applied that to the study of fear; and along with some
others, I intuit there are some gems to be uncovered and ‘more’ yet, not
even contained within the state where my mind can imagine. Upon that
basis, I am pleased to offer the foundations for an expanding imaginary
and vocabulary, and discerning critical literacy, and a Primer on fear.
In 2006, coming off five years of graduate research in a faculty of
Education in Canada, I was convinced that the world needed a new ‘Fear’
Studies field. Twelve years later, I founded and now edit the International
Journal of Fear Studies. During my grad years, one of my claims was
that as a society we had to correct a good deal of what we thought
for centuries we knew about fear. Times were dramatically changing
and so was fear, I argued. Diverse and intersecting crises globally were
cascading. I believed we best ought to start a fresh transdisciplinary
inquiry into fear, including a notion of fear-plus(ing)—that is, fearism—
founded upon the basic philosophical assumption: “‘Fear’ is not what
it used to be” [10]. Fear-plus arose originally by my adding (‘) marks
to some specific uses of the term fear. This gave me a way to mark a
radical postmodern territory of deconstruction and reconstruction of
meanings and definitions of fear—and, to signify big changes were
happening to fear itself and how to know fear (and ‘fear’) itself. Simple
reductionistic biopsychological definitions of fear, as a largely negative
feeling and emotion, that arises naturally due to danger or threat, were
no longer sufficient to a critical-holistic understanding that many of us
postmodern fearists were searching for.
Not everyone could understand what I was doing and they couldn’t
fathom what a fearist was or a fearologist, the latter which I claimed as
my expertise in 2000. Readers and listeners have, since coining those
labels, largely ignored the (‘) marks. Importantly, this (re-)signification
of ‘fear’ was not merely objective but also subjective; thus invoking
us as fear researchers and as everyday humans to realize that we are
subjectively and historically creating what fear is and is not. We have to
be critical of our definitions, discourses and narratives of knowledge-
making about fear itself. This power-fear-knowledge aspect is what makes
fearist conceptualizing potent and political. As a great fear educator, 70
years ago, once said, “fear is not a private affair” [11].
The dominating individualistic psychology of fear discourse(s)
necessarily, via philosophy, comes under scrutiny. Such psychological
privileging as the only legitimate paradigm and place to truly understand
fear and humans, is to be seen as arrogant. The new fearists, enlarge
the perspective, lens and disciplinary boundaries—they transgress
traditions—and thus, they would require a new form of bold questing
for truth but also a new humbleness when in the face of examining
fear. Fear(ism) is built upon this fear-plus scaffolding of basic (re-)
orientation to getting to know fear (and ourselves) better than we ever
have as a species. Fearism as a philosophy is thus critical philosophy,
which does not accept the status quo alone in all domains of knowing
in regard to the topic fear. Ultimately, my graduate research promoted
a broader and deeper context, what is simply called the Fear Problem to
the world [12]. A rare few readers and listeners wish to embrace such a
notion. Whatever the reasons of resistance to that context, now it is up
to us to courageously understand it, manage it, transform and solve it.
In this Primer you will learn how important it is to shift from
mostly speaking about fears (e.g., fear of x, y, z; and phobias) to speaking
about fear itself. My study concluded that the world is being swamped
by excessive toxic fear-based conditions bred within the Cultural realm
but spreading to infect the Natural and Spiritual realms of reality. Some
new intervention is needed and so it is best to go to the core of human
behavior and culture to see for ourselves what is happening with “fear”
and its constructions as ‘fear.’ The technicalities and distinctions of
these terms will be discussed briefly in this Primer. From this point
forward, the type of philosophy herein called “Fearism” (with capital),
asks humans as a minimum to explore no longer leaving the term “fear”
bare and unconnected to the much larger encompassing ‘ism’ system/
concept and its philosophy—fear(ism). In this Primer, you will be
introduced to three originary and primary philosophers of Fearism (R.
Michael Fisher, Desh Subba, Samuel Nathan Gillian Jr.) and several
others who write about fear(ism), even if all these authors/teachers do
not explicitly use these terms to describe their fearwork.

Fearism Complicates Fear
Nepali writer-poet Desh Subba coined his version of “fearism” for

the first time in 1999 in an unpublished manuscript. Eventually, it
dawned on him it was not just a perspective to view literary criticism
but all of Life—thus, he eventually extended (plus-ed) both fear and
fearism. Currently, with at least 15 books published, mostly in English
(and several not), using “Philosophy of Fearism” as the central topic
or many that are based on this new philosophy, the time has come
for a simplified Primer version for the beginner and students of this
movement.
Frequently Asked Questions: (5). Did Subba’s notion come

from study of the philosophy of fear already published by others
or was it completely new? It has integrated some insights from
past thought; but it takes off on its own intuitive and creative
trajectory. Fearists generally find the usual philosophies of fear are
insufficient in scope and breadth, while they ignore centralizing
fear at the core of the human condition, of motivation and of
philosophizing itself. (6). But doesn’t existential philosophy
put “fear of death” at the center of the human condition and
philosophy itself? Yes it does; but that is one of the fears only
of many fears. Fear itself was usurped in existentialism to focus
rather on anxiety—which, is also the case with the field of
Philosophy in general. Fear of death became anxiety of mortality,
etc. Psychology that comes from Philosophy tends to follow this
same course of methodology and downplaying the role of fear.
Fearists make several different moves and acknowledge, for
example, existential philosophy but “philosophy of fearism” is
arguably the newest developmental branch of that tradition.

(7). Philosophy of Fearism is awkward sounding, at least in
English. And Subba is Nepali, with English as a second
language—is there a problem in making an emotion both an ism
and a philosophy? Sure, these are true limitations of interpretation
by exactly what Subba means by such words. What is on his mind
and what translates in English words is not always accurately
consonant. Besides that issue, the awkwardness can be overcome
somewhat by thinking how Subba equates (analogously) naming
a philosophy Fearism with, for example, philosophers naming a
philosophy Rationalism or Naturalism or Socialism, etc. The
“rational” mode of thinking or the “natural” world of empirical
truth, whatever the case, can indeed be legitimately centralized
to categorize an entire way of doing philosophy. The “existential”
condition of humanity was centralized by existentialists to make
a category of philosophy of Existentialism and an accompanying
intellectual and therapeutic movement. Subba equates these
operational categorizations with his own philosophy of Fearism.
He was out to create a Fearism movement, that would extend
well beyond philosophy and include the therapeutic, etc. (see his
mission later in the Primer).
For over three decades I have systematically engaged the topic of

fear (and fearlessness) [13] and searched across the disciplines and popular
resources for references to fearism. Having established a track record
of expertise on fear(ism) related topics, and published more on this
than anyone worldwide, it never ceases to amaze me how persistently
motivated I am to know more and share it. I want to know everything
of the experiences, individually and collectively, involving fear(ism),
and especially the fear scholarship emerging with new findings
about just how complex fear really is. Discoveries from diverse fields
continues to unravel the mysteries of fear itself—and, all their yet to be
answered questions. Beyond the in depth investigations and theories, a
philosophy of fearism is also very practical. Fearists are also interested

in one outstanding common question humans keep asking over the
generations: “When is fear working for us, and when is it against us?”
This grounds us in ongoing dialogues and helps push the field of fear
management to evolve.
To answer that question, it can be more complex than it first appears
to be. How would we distinguish “when,” who would know, how
would they know? Thus, we enter an inquiry in the territory I label
as the global Fear Problematique. No world leader has intimated the
problem with fear, and said it so publicly (now famously cited), as former
President of the USA, F. D. Roosevelt in 1933, when he told his nation:
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” His humanitarian work
with Eleanor Roosevelt, created the “Four Freedoms,” of which the last
and most important is the universal goal for all people, that is: “freedom
from fear.” What exactly that means and how to attain it is an ongoing
controversy for fearists because of our different orientations with some
of us more fear-negative (e.g., Fisher) and some more fear-positive (e.g.,
Subba and Gillian)—however, I am both—and, all of us core fearists
have a theory of pathological fear (i.e., negative form) [14].
The Age of Anxiety was named and burgeoning in the early 1940s
and the Age of Terror was to follow the September 11, 2001 attack on
American soil. Subba renders our postmodern times as being in the
midst of a ninth stage of evolution, he labeled the “Extreme Fear Age”
[15]
. One cultural scholar argued recently that much of culture itself has
taken a “phobial turn” [16] another scholar and historian of emotions
noted there is now a “phobic regime of modernity” [17] that dominates
knowledge and society; and many others have said a “culture of fear”
[18]
is near ubiquitous—which, finally there is a new Fear scholarship
is slowly engaging the phenomena. The whole world, more or less,
has been impacted by the reasonable and unreasonable demands that
the problem of fear has placed in our hearts and on our shoulders.
Humanity, if it to remain sane, can no longer turn its back on the
global complexity of fear and diminish its importance. Our adaptive
evolution of a species will depend on this re-visioning our relationship
and methodologies re: fear(ism) and (‘fear’).

I became a self-styled fearologist c. 2000 in order to formulate a
serious (and complexifying) discipline of fearology—equally, disciplined
and equally as important to that of any other field like biology or
psychology. I did so to honor my own inquiries, the data, and to respect
and care what fear has brought into evolution and the human condition.
Desh Subba and Sam Gillian have done the same. They deeply care
about fear. Subba overtly has called himself a fearist kind of philosopher,
novelist, and poet.
The history and the people behind the Philosophy of Fearism
movement are critically important to this Primer, but so is the actual
theorizing and practices of this new philosophy and the implications for
social change toward a healthier, saner and sustainable future for this
planet. Herein you can familiarize yourself with diverse and complicating
aspects of the Philosophy of Fearism. And may you find things that are
useful to improve the quality of life for you, your clients, and your
larger communities. See Basic Resources at the end of this book. Most
importantly, I encourage you to ask questions and enter dialogues with
others interested. No one is likely going to benefit very much from such
study doing it alone, without peers challenging claims and truths in good
ways. Both Subba and I are willing to talk with people (and students), as
are most fearists, to aid in developing this nascent philosophy.
Frequently Asked Questions: (8). Is this just for academics?

How does one become a fearist? or fearologist? No. It is for
everyone interested. There is no one way, no one website, no
one organization, no one leader, no one program, course, or
diploma to attain so that one may legitimately call oneself by
these labels. As you read the Primer more details are available of
where you can study fearism. As well, be informed and cautious
of some others on the Internet who make claims about their
expertise on fear and its management; and likewise be cautious of
others who use these two labels in only negative ways in populist
discourses—equating them with fearmongering.

The latter slurs are typically uninformed with no study of the
serious fearists and fearologists and the overall Fearism movement
around the world. (9). Do I have to agree with everything
from each of the core three fearists (Fisher, Subba, Gillian) in
order to be a fearist? No. All three of us don’t agree with each
other’s work on all aspects but we tend to have some collective
agreements on certain things, which will become more clear as
you study this Primer and/or investigate our works systematically
and comparatively. (10). How popular and well-respected is
this philosophy and movement? Philosophy of Fearism and its
promoting teachers are not very well-known. I do not know of
any research or educational institute in the wider-world beyond
our small circles, that is researching on fearism and/or using
the material from the fearists as part of their optional and/or
regular curriculum. It remains a marginal school of thought,
at this time. (11). Are there critiques of Philosophy of Fearism
by others outside of this school of thought? Yes. But not very
many and not substantial usually. Good criticism is essential
for this new philosophy to grow and mature. References to such
initial critiques are included in the details of the Primer when
appropriate.
Risking to Care Deeply for Fear
Fear is not easily knowable, says the transdisciplinary

fearist—but fear is more easily careable, which may be
more important in the long run. -R. Michael Fisher [19]
Desh Subba, Sam Gillian and I deeply care about fear [20]. This
imperative caring about one’s subject of investigation is easily overlooked
or dismissed, by a more calculative mind and attitude which wants/
needs information about fear for mere utilitarian ends. The latter tends

to demand efficiency, efficacy, reliability as priority values—and, they
typically have little patience beyond that achievement aim. They need
“results” for whatever their wants that they bring to the learning about
fear. For example, they want/need practical advice; they demand “take-
aways” and/or they insist knowledge on fear management is empirical
(research-based) and based on rational solid evidence and logical claims
of truth about fear. They want/need reductionistic certainty that fear
management techniques will work and not cause more harms.
These social-drivers for achievement have now swamped most
research and practices of fear management and just about every other
kind of caring there is. They care less about holistic approaches,
complicated and complex theories and philosophies of fear. Such is an
understandable emphasis because for them ‘time is money’ and they
do not want to waste anything they do. It is understandable they are
impatient when they perceive a need to deal with fear(s)—as if it as an
emergency or near so. However, from a fearist lens, such haste is also
a dangerous one; as is all utilitarianism and self-serving means to use
information and knowledge. The latter, is typically fear-based itself—
and unfortunately, enacts and re-produces caring shallowly about fear
itself. This exacerbates the Fear Problem overall.
The rigorous fearist is cautious of emphasis on merely means—
without sensitive and ethical ends as guiding growth, compassion and
wisdom. Fear management is not so simple as to extract from knowledge
sources and just use techniques to conquer fear—and inflate the ego’s
sense of control of the universe (and death). No. A new caring, honesty,
humility and maturity is being called for at the base of the philosophy
of Fearism. “Too negatively terrified,” most everyone is conditioned to
“lie,” argued Gillian—and, worse, through repressive mechanisms of
defense, we forget we are lying and we mostly lie about fear itself—and,
thus lie about the human condition—about who we really are [21]. We
thus get out-of-touch with reality. That is really dangerous.
Fear is powerful, most would agree, and like all powerful things they
are easily to become corrupted by human frailty and imperfection—by
selfishness (individualism) and the need to “develop” and dominate.
That current tendency (especially in the West) is one reason that a new
scholarship on fear(ism) is being built instead upon the self-reflective
pro-social philosophy of Fearism. It is being built upon the best of
Existentialism (with traces in Stoicism), and other ethical subjectivist
and/or spiritual pursuits, not mere objective utilitarianism. So, at times,
this former caring interest to ‘befriending’ fear and to ‘respecting’ fear
itself, may lead to more theoretical discussions about the nature and role
of fear than most people want. It is a risk to get to know and befriend
fear that frightens most people away. That is a fear problem itself [22].
It is one thing to focus on Fear(ism) as more important than any
other motivator of human behavior, social life, and as the meta-driver
of the evolution of Life itself; and it is another thing to prove this is
accurate. There’s a risk to put so much credence upon this so-called fear
factor, or better to call it a fear vector [23]. One could be wrong and end
up missing other vectors of equal or more importance.
Proving is a very high calling—not always achievable, while probing
through critical, yet connective, co-inquiry is probably the best we
humans can do when taking on such a massive topic of study of
something both visible and invisible, individual and collective—like
the nature and role of fear(ism). The former call to “prove” is typically
pursued through rational, empirical and scientific methods; yet, the
defense of the “real” and “accurate” are always philosophically less
certain, and shrouded in mystery and incompleteness—no less is the
case with the problems of knowing itself (i.e., epistemology). Fear is not
easily knowable, says the postmodern transdisciplinary fearist. Multiple
modes of knowing beyond the merely rational and scientific approaches
are also required in a holistic study of fear(ism). However, the fearist
(as fear-positivist) also claims by intuitive logic and good observations
steeped in authentic and deep caring re: human behavior [24]—and re:
fear itself—that there are as yet unexplored routes to discovering more
about fear than humans have ever known in their entire history and
evolution. Fearists take this radical futures perspective on possibility—
and, patiently and passionately pursue fear management/education in
new and creative ways, where most others fear to tread.

Endnotes
1. Subba (2014), p. 11.

2. Gillian (2005), pp. 66, 57.
3. Some of these distinctions will be detailed later in the Primer; for an intense initial
review of the thought behind “towards a theory of fearism” see Fisher (2014);
see also Fisher and Subba (2016a), especially Chapter Four.
4. Both Subba and I have communicated with each other about how we are
integrating the best of the ancient, modern, postmodern thought systems but
we also believe philosophy of Fearism is post-postmodern as well—and, Subba’s
(2021) book indicates this directionality beyond postmodern discourse into
what he refers to as “trans philosophism” and how philosophy of Fearism is always
evolving as philosophical thinking evolves concomitantly. Post-postmodern, in
Fisher’s philosophy, is best described as “integral” philosophy/theory (see for
e.g., Ken Wilber (e.g., 1995), whom Fisher draws upon in his fearwork—e.g.
see Fisher, 2010). Fisher and Subba (2016a) discuss “Wilber’s meta-perspective
or standpoint” and what they often call a “holistic-integral” perspective on fear
and fearlessness (p. 27).
5. Fisher (2006), p. 58.
6. Personal communications, Elisebeth VanderWeil, June 29, 2022.
7. E.g., see Fisher (2019a).
8. E.g., VanderWeil (2020), p. 176; see also Four Arrows.
9. William James quoted in Simon (1998), p. xxii.
10. Fisher (2006), p. 43.
11. Overstreet (1951/71), p. 103.
12. There are many diverse, cross-disciplinary sources not discussed in the Primer as
to why one ought to make the case of a serious Fear Problem on this macro-scale
of analysis. One can read this problem development in the works of Fisher, Subba,
Gillian (see Basic References). Fisher (2006) believes the best initial naming of
the insidious historical Fear Problem (also called “Fear Problematique” in Fisher,
in press) is the poetic indictment by artist-philosopher and existentialist Albert
Camus c. 1946: “The 17th century was the century of mathematics, the 18th
century was of physical sciences, and the 19th century biology. Our 20th century
is the century of fear” (p. 43).
13. The quick summary of my Fearlessness Project is in Fisher and Subba (2016a),
pp. 12-16; for a more extensive review see for e.g., Fisher (2010). My other fear-
plusing strategy (beyond (‘) marks on fear) was that of fear(less)(ness).
14. For one of the best explanations of fear-positivists and fear-negativists and their
roles, see Fisher (2022a).
15. Subba (2014), pp. 44-5.

16. For “phobial turn” see Bogun (2016), p. 91; for new Fear scholarship see Fisher
(2006), and a brief summary of evidence in Fisher and Subba (2016a), pp. 9-10;
and for a more encompassing review of this literature see Brissett (2003).
17. Plamper and Lazier (2010).
18. E.g., Furedi (1997), Glassner (1999).
19. E.g., Fisher (2022b).
20. This equally involves deeply caring (meaning, connectivity) re: the self/society, for
fear cannot be extracted (reduced) as merely a separate “subject” (object) from
the intricate threads of living systems, which transcend individuals and their
needs and perceptions. Thus, philosophy of Fearism has been called a social
philosophy (e.g., see Fisher & Subba, 2016a) and not merely individualist, merely
rationalist, or career-based academic and professional philosophy (p. 46, 52-3).
21. Gillian (2005), e.g., Chapter 13.
22. No other philosopher I know has made this argumentation so well as Krishnamurti
(e.g., 1995).
23. E.g., Fisher (2020a).
24. The philosophy of Fearism does not by necessity restrict itself to the inquiry
of humans alone but thus far, this has been its major focus. Equally,
rational thought has dominated the methods of fearists. However, with the
transdisciplinary initiative for inquiry, fear(ism) study also leaves plenty of room
to learn from the arational (distinct from irrational) modes and methods like
reverie, dreaming, imagining, ritual, magical and mythical consciousness, deep
creativity and intuition, trance, non-ordinary and hypnotic states, meditation
and contemplation, psychotropic-based inquiry, ecological knowing and cross-
species empathy, etc.—as well as learning from our primal ancestor species,
human and/or greater than human (e.g., via an Indigenous worldview) as
“teachers” of fear and its management—this latter point is made by Indigenous
scholar and Lakota Sioux initiate, Four Arrows (aka Don T. Jacobs), whereby
we are called to become “connoisseurs of Fear” (e.g., see Jacobs, 1998; and Four
Arrows, 2016a, p. xiii).

History and People Behind The
Philosophy of Fearism
Fearism: A Mixed History
He [Desh Subba, 1965-] started fearism as a literary

movement in 1999 with fiction and in 2011 with line
poetry. -excerpt from Wikipedia “Desh Subba”
L ike with any philosophy and movement that goes with

it, there is history worth knowing. There are people as ‘actors’
worth knowing. Historical knowledge offers a larger context to what
one is learning in the present time. This is equally important when one
sets out to understand the nature and role of fear(ism).
However, there is never one history to these complex phenomena.
Histories are more accurate because they are written from many
perspectives, based on the players involved, and/or based on historians
who take different approaches to the same topic. To date, no one has
written a systematic good history of Fearism or Philosophy of Fearism.
Although there are a few published history of fear texts by scholars,
none of them include “fearism.” And, the most cited scholarly use of
“fearism” is in the field of global migration studies and that use is taken
from Fisher’s original meaning of fearism as an ideology [1] not Subba’s
usage. Below later, Fisher adopted fearism-t (toxic form) to differentiate
his original meaning from Subba’s.
A search on the Internet today of “Fearism” will bring one to “Desh
Subba.” That’s because some people have contributed to his Wikipedia
pages over the years. Although it has not been kept up-to-date or is it
very detailed. It also does not give the nuanced story about the mixed
history of “Fearism” that includes but is beyond just “philosophy of
Fearism,” as coined by the Nepali writer-philosopher Subba in 1999.
There is still no Wikipedia entry for “Fearism” and that history of
D16E
writing one; one was written and it was taken down by Wikipedia and
then re-written (by Fisher). It has been a case of frustration for some
fearists; but for the record, the original was published in Fisher and
Subba in 2016a. for [2].
This Primer offers only a bare minimum sketch of the history, and it
will thereby miss some details, which can be found throughout the first
East-West text on philosophy of Fearism by Fisher and Subba (2016a).
To keep track of the histories of Fearism it is best to note their linear
unfolding in time, but also note they are independently conceived under
that label by at least three core people who have coined the concept. As
well, in this Primer, the kinds of Fearism are distinguished as Fisherian,
Subbaian, and Subbaian-Fisherian.
Fisherian Fearism
Fear is a power that always attracts us. [3]
R. Michael Fisher, began to use on rare occasions the term “fearism”

since September 1990. These unpublished uses are the earliest records
of humans coining this term. Fisher’s very first meaning of the concept
was “Egoism is fearism.” He was articulating a speculative notion that
was highly psychological and cognitive whereby: “The ego is based
on the ‘habit of fear’ and we are reluctant (terrified) to let go of our
addiction to toxic fear-based thinking” [4]. In fear-negativist fashion,
Fisher’s emphasis was on insidious pathological fear operations in the
human being.
He was writing this in reference to a “meta-service healing model”
for caregivers at the time. Fisher wanted them to know the difference
between having a fear experience and being addicted to that fearfulness,
whereas in this latter state it becomes a toxifying (often chronic)
condition of the psyche. It produces a good deal of negative (often
violent) consequences individually and collectively. “Fear-based” for
Fisher, since late 1989, is an near-equivalent concept with fearism;
whereby 50% or more of one’s motivations are led by fear and the more

beyond that 50% [5] and, the more beyond 50% he was then referring
to egoism/fearism as the phenomenon going on. At that point, “natural
fear” was over-ridden by a culturally-constructed ‘fear’ phenomenon.
He meant egoism/fearism as a patterned culturally-inscribed dynamic
set of forces (and codes) that are ruling the person or organization—
and, it would negatively distort the very understanding and practices of
caring. For clarification of Fisher’s view of fear(ism) and philosophy of
Fearism overall see later in this Primer on the section People.
The excessive fear patterning (or ‘fear’ patterning) for Fisher is due
to fearism as an ideology that tells people how they should understand
and experience fear, how they should cope with and manage it, and
how to maintain a particular fear-based state and perceptual lens on
the world in order to survive. Again, the problem is the authorities who
are uttering these edicts about fear and hiding the fact that they are
preying upon people’s addiction to fear, of which the very system of the
collective, society, culture, has inculcated into the people from birth.
Fisher also used the term “fearism” with an interwoven notion to egoism,
whereby he believed that fearism is the underbelly (more invisible form)
of terrorism [6]. He was now referring to the politics of fear/terror—and
the ‘ism’ dis-ease, he would sometimes call it. His argument was that
terrorism is horrible but it is only the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ that is, it is the
exploding part of fearism as extreme behavior that gets all the attention
[7]
. More important in his view, which is hidden below the surface of the
iceberg under the waterline—that is, where to locate fearism. Fearism
is going on all the time, and accumulating toxically to the point where
there has to be a release in the system somewhere. The release is excess
fear/terror beyond what could be called natural fear/terror of existence
(in an existential sense). Thus, Fisherian Fearism is psycho-cultural-
political and ideological in its discourse. He still uses it but in late 2014
something challenged his view, and he changed some of his thinking.
Desh Subba contacted Fisher on email in 2014, just after Subba
had his first, and award-winning, major textbook Philosophy of Fearism
published. Fisher was as astounded as Subba was to learn about someone
else writing about fear(ism) so intensely for so many years. How could
they have missed each other? With this joining in dialogues and
co-writing, the next co-evolution of Fearism was underway. But before
that fearstory, there are a few other parties, lurking in the shadow
margins, who are somewhat less significant (yet important) to the
original coining of fearism, that is, Tony Hiss (1992) quoted in White
(1997), and Shirlow and Pain (2003). Each party independently, used
the concept “fearism” very much like Fisher. White, an American
scholar in political science, quoted Hiss from The New Yorker, who had
coined “low-grade fearism” [8] as the ongoing more subtle destructive
side of overt acts of terrorism. Shirlow and Pain, sociological scholars,
used “fearism” as an umbrella concept, defining it as “the manufactured
and contested nature and use of fear of crime”—that is, as a type of
cultural level fearmongering built on “fearist discourses” [9]. Shirlow
and Pain, were taking the actualization of fear in the sociopolitical
realm as a phenomenon no longer merely an individual emotion or
psychological state. Implicitly, fearism as ideology is largely unconscious
and not necessarily felt as a feeling. This is also the first use of “fearist”
in the literature, which precedes Subba’s use of that label in his 2014
book by nearly a decade [10]. All of the above are constructed as negative
connotations for fearism—that is, extreme fear-plus—meaning fear as
embedded in ideologism. And from that frame, Fisher has continued to
use fearism as foundational to his fearwork up to the present time but
has added a variant form (see Subbaian-Fisherian Fearism). For Fisher’s
more detailed original definition of fearism, see later in the Primer on
Theory.
Frequently Asked Questions: 12. Is the arising post-1990 turn

(pre-Subbaian) uses of fearism part of a wave of change and
transformation going on in North American society—and,
uniquely Western? It’s not known for sure but this historical
concentration of people coining the term independently in the
West in the 1990s decade must have some connection to the real
world happenings of those times.

Certainly, 1989-90, with the fall of the Soviet Union, the collapse
of the Berlin Wall in Germany, indicate positive signs of the Cold
War overtly being “over”—but, other interpretations indicate
that the fear/terror/panic merely went underground (more
unconscious in shadow forms). Perhaps, the need to name the
zeitgeist of the times and the ongoing destructivity and violence
was a means of ‘not forgetting’ the battles of fear going on
all over—outwardly, and inwardly. Naming “fearism” in this
(negativist) Fisherian way then is arguably, a positive thing. It is a
critical theory/philosophy for the times—and, fear is centralized
in its potency to shape everyday life—on all dimensions of
societies. The actual outcomes of ideological fearism however,
were still negatively impacting the world in the 1990s. It does
seem the wave of change was uniquely Western and/or something
in the W. consciousness was ready to admit it and call it what it
was. Historical research is still needed on this. 13. What about
the East? Subba’s 1999 coining of fearism has political and literary
impetus, as he is a revolutionary writer in Nepal, even though he
moved to Hong Kong to raise his family. But his temperament
is a softer and more Eastern-Asian approach. Looking for other
ways that are less emotive and radical politically. He replaces
that overt conflictual edge of politics via his social philosophy
and theorizing towards a fear-positivist emphasis (movement)
for change and transformation. Not surprising, he would call
it a “philosophy of Fearism.” In his later works, especially, he
puts up his own fearism (as “trans philosophism”) against
Marxism showing his political criticism overtly. His agenda is
about consciousness evolution and education but also therapeutic
applications of fearism.

Subbaian Fearism
Although many cite Subba’s discovery of fearism beginning in 1999,

when he wrote the term down in a work he was writing about literary
criticism, there is no doubt he was well aware of the nature and role of
fear in human societies—and, as a foundational motivator and shaper
of literary works, including his own. There is a vast unwritten history
of Subba’s discovery and its early paths before his tome in 2014.
Part of the reason for this ‘gap’ historically, is that he has not had the
interest or time to write it down fully, and the other reason is that English
is a second-language and very challenging for him. He usually needs
interpreters and they are very expensive. That said, he also has a number
of books published, more or less, involving fear(ism) not in English; and
other Asian writers on fearism likewise have published but these are not
translated into English and so they remain elusive to the W. researchers
(like myself). Eventually, he or others in the near future will likely tell
the Subbaian fearstory re: fearism in more detail. In Fisher and Subba
(2016a), they published a listing of a good deal of the Eastern-Asian
authors and articles, (largely non-English) books on fearism [11]; however,
it was somewhat incomplete then and is now six years out-of-date.
With Subba’s commitment to spread the word on philosophy of
Fearism immediately upon publishing his 2014 text, he made many
trips around the world to present at conferences, via diverse fields. He
generally felt his work was well-received and he made lasting contacts
in populist and academic arenas. He also has attracted many students
to study his fearism, one whom has been particularly active is Rana
Kafle in N. E. India, who is doing ‘Basibiyalo’ (means “using free time”)
adult popular education on fearism in the countryside since 2012—
apparently still ongoing. There is also the strong companionship of
support and co-authorship from B. Maria Kumar in India. Subba also
posts extensively on Facebook and other social media—an inveterate
leader of the movement and mentor. Fearism Study Centres have popped
up first in Nepal, and now in N. Africa [12]. From recent dialogue with
Subba, he reports they are not currently active, awaiting to be renewed
when energy and resources can be devoted to their objectives.

Subbaian-Fisherian Fearism
In late 2014, Subba contacted Fisher because he had found some

published works of Fisher’s online for the first time. They corresponded
a few times and Fisher ordered a copy of Subba’s tome Philosophy of
Fearism. Within a few days, Fisher wrote back and told Subba he
was over-joyed that someone was writing about fear the way he had.
Fisher knew his own theory of fearism was quite different than Subba’s
but he felt they had so much in common as well on many aspects
of understanding fear. Fisher was glad to see Subba also included
“fearlessness” in his work. So, Fisher immediately began to sort out in
Technical Paper No. 51 his own position on the history and theorizing
of fearism that he knew of before meeting Subba’s work. Ultimately,
he set out to integrate that with Subba’s version. Fisher pronounced in
that paper that he would make an alliance with Subba’s work in general
and adopt in some ways the Subbaian perspective on fear(ism) and
differentiate another variant called fearism-t (toxic form) in order to
keep both types of fearism (for details see the Primer section on Theory).
That began a new era for both of these amateur philosophers and
educators of a philosophy of Fearism. They have published many articles
and books together since that time and presented a couple of papers
and lectures together internationally on fearism. They met for the
first time in 2016 in a joint, rather spontaneous, lecture on “Fearism”
for the Grand International Creative Ceremony-III, sponsored by the
Bhutanese Legacy Youth Club, Dallas, TX. Their weekend together
provided opportunities to hear each other talk in person; albeit, each
of them admitted that because of the language barrier between them,
they only understood maybe half of what the other was saying. Fisher
remarked to Subba at the end of the event that he had never been
so respected by any community of people in all his years as a public
intellect, as he felt with these Bhutanese in the diaspora.
It is truly the open-minded generosity of this philosopher Desh
Subba that growth and development is possible for a philosophy of
Fearism. Fisher wrote of his experience collaborating with Subba’s
fearwork:

As well as pursuing with Subba a philosophy of fearism,
there ought to be a sufficient space for a diversity of
theories of fearism—if not, someday a more universal
theory of fearism. I do not think we are there yet. [13]
Fisher also noted that when he sent his first writing on fearism in
Technical Paper No. 51, in 2014:
Subba distributed my paper in the E. and spoke highly

of it in some of his promotional book presentations.
He encouraged me...he felt this was an important
scholarly addition to thinking about fearism in his own
philosophy and beyond. [14]
Inevitably, with the meeting of Subba-Fisher, there was to arise, for

any thinking person, an inevitable question (potentially) central to the
future development of the concept and philosophy of Fearism: Who’s
philosophy of Fearism is better? Not Subba or Fisher directly engaged in
this confrontation nor were they interested in competition. However,
in Fisher’s writing he often does begin minor critiques of Subba’s work,
while at the same time as embracing it with his full support in general.
He was concerned about the quality of the English translation
that Subba’s 2014 book was presented upon. He thought he could help
improve other’s understanding of it if they wrote together (Fisher and
Subba, 2016a). For a detailed overview of “Comparison of Subba and
Fisher Versions of Philosophy of Fearism” see Appendix 1 in their first
co-written book, which is the standard text for an E-W dialogue on the
topic of fear(ism) generally [15].
They chose at times a dialogical framework for discussing their
ideas in their co-writing but Fisher’s competence in English language
always left him as the main writer and shaper of their collaborations in
text. Fisher has not always been comfortable with interpreting Subba’s
drafts but someone had to do it, and Subba has always been satisfied
generally with the results. They wrote of their open-minded aim in the
2016 book:

Neither of us have pursued the study of fear(ism) from
only within the dominant imaginary of our societies, E. or
W. and/or within the dominant imaginaries of disciplines
like Psychology or Psychiatry (less so Philosophy) and
their fixed categories and definitions of ‘fear.’ We
open up our minds and we hope our reader’s minds as
well, to explore a unique and radical transcultural and
transdisciplinary approach to the topic. [16]
Frequently Asked Questions: 14. Is philosophy of Fearism

growing internationally and becoming everything the co-founders
wanted? If you asked Subba, he is optimistic because of the years
of his spreading the notion “fearism” well before his 2014 book
came out, so he has lots of followers in the E. Thus, he generally
tends to be more patient and accepting of the relatively slow
progress of spreading the word and it being taken up into action.
If you ask Fisher, he is more doubtful in that he lives in the W. and
his teaching of fearism has always been more overtly negative and
political in critique. People don’t want to hear that. He concludes,
be it with Subba’s approach or his own, that it is very hard to find
interest of significance with real impacts going on. Until there is
a systematic study and history done of philosophy of Fearism, no
one has objectively a big picture globally of how effectively the
movement is growing or stalling. 15. When did the first critics
of philosophy of Fearism show up and publish their views in
conflict with Subba’s views? This data has not been researched
systematically as yet. There have been a few critiques since his
2014 book but nothing major. Fisher and Subba do agree that
“fearism” is still a hard concept to teach to people so that they ‘get
it,’ no matter what their backgrounds. Typically, Subba reads his
critiques from others but does not respond with a public statement
and/or critical rejoinder. This topic of challenges and criticisms
will be taken up in this Primer under Theory.

Endnotes
1. A good review of that literature, and critique, see Fisher (2017a).

2. Fisher and Subba (2016a), pp. 9-10.
3. Subba (2014), p. 46.
4. Fisher (2019b).
5. Fisher (2013).
6. See Fisher on terror(ism) (in Fisher and Subba, 2016a), pp. 115, 117.
7. The “terrorism” concept and phenomenon has been addressed by fearists a few
times over the years, e.g., see Fisher (2016b, 2018a).
8. White (1997), p. 74 cited Hiss (1992) article in The New Yorker, Nov. 16, 1992.
9. Shirlow and Pain (2003), pp. 15, 20.
10. I made an initial (incomplete) research study of those using “fearist” in 2015;
typically, those using the term do not use it like the Fisher-Subbaian fearists (see
summary, in Fisher and Subba, 2016a, p. 86).
12. Dr. Tanka Prasad Neupane, Chairman in Dharan, Nepal. In Nigeria, Osinakachi
Akuma Kalu, has been a young leader there since c. 2017.
13. Fisher in Fisher and Subba (2016a), p. 99.
14. This technical paper (Fisher, 2014) as referred to here is from Fisher in Fisher
and Subba (2016a), p. 98.
15. Fisher and Subba (2016a), p. 37.
16. Ibid., p. xxiii.

An Intellectual Movement in
Philosophy and Beyond
Philosophy has a great role to play in understanding all

phenomena that has to do with the human emotions and
mind—our learning, our teaching, our organization
and socialization—that is, our human potential....
Philosophy of Fearism...is a philosophy all about fear, a
central shaping dynamic. - Fisher, Subba and Kumar [1]
P hilosophical thought, ideas, debates and

methodologies have always underlain various kinds of social,
political and intellectual movements throughout history. When Subba
and Fisher began talking together about their fearwork in late 2014
onward, it was apparent that both of them envisioned creating a global
movement. The simplest aims of the Fearism movement for them
were to:
(a) collect, research, write and teach so as to improve

and disseminate the best knowledge on fear(ism)
and in doing so to make fear an interesting
and more positive concept and experience than
historically has been the case
(b) to analyze fear management/education theories

and practices already going on and to add a fearism
lens and perspective on them
(c) to coordinate a postmodern and post-postmodern

holistic approach to fear which would effectuate a
decline in the current excess of toxic or negative
fear in the world and to prevent the arising of it in
the present and future generations
D26E
(d) to create training centres for teaching trainers to
use fearism in order to teach others
Unfortunately or maybe fortunately, the “Fearism Movement” was

never systematically cast forward in published accounts in an overt way
with a label (with a few exceptions [2]), although it was always implied.
The reasons for this are not entirely clear.
Frequently Asked Questions: 16. How is the Fearlessness

Movement related to the Fearism Movement? Fisher named the
former and Subba named the latter. Fisher first (in 1989) named
The Fearlessness Project to counter the ‘Fear’ Project and he
meant for the former to be a Movement but he didn’t actually
name that until around 2010 and more overtly in 2016 with
the founding of the Fearlessness Movement ning as an online
community. Subba was promoting his own Fearism movement
but perhaps it was over-shadowed somewhat by the Fearlessness
Movement; yet, from the start of their collaboration both core
founding fearists adopted each other’s Movement and saw that
they were complementary. 17. Are all other fearists (other than
Subba) totally in harmony with the Fearlessness Movement in
such a complementary way? No. But most are. 18. Should they
be? No not necessarily. Fisher and Subba have always offered
everyone interested to be part of their movements to think for
themselves as there is no paid membership and sworn oaths or
codes of law with either of the movements.
To find legitimation for this new philosophy of Fearism, Subba

and Fisher saw that it was best to align it (somewhat) with current
philosophy movements/schools but also to show it is unique and goes
beyond the limitations of existential thought. Subba and Fisher agreed
that it was best located as a newest branch of Existential philosophy
(with traces in Stoicism). Various early readers of Subba’s 2014 text

on philosophy of Fearism had also given a sense that what Subba had
come up with was not merely a treatise on fear but it was a life-style and
movement to change the world and/or at least to change various fields of
study that might adopt the lens of fearism. For example, “His [Subba’s]
fearism will make Nepali literary world and the world literature to
have been considered and studied,” wrote one author [3]. “Fearism
yields an alternative interpretation of class struggle,” wrote another
[4]
. Indeed, a “movement” provides the means for re-making the world
in some way, both individually and collectively. Fearism was to be an
explanatory philosophy with many theories, and associated practices of
fear management, that would help humans come to understand Life
and themselves better, beyond past explanations given by the likes of
Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, etc.
Founders: From Dyad to the Triad
Philosophy of Fearism founders are Desh Subba and R. Michael

Fisher. Four Arrows in his West: Foreword to Fisher’s and Subba’s
first collaborative book on the topic, wrote that these two authors
are: “the two most eminent fearologists in the world” and they “offer
reflections from two very different cultural orientations that can lead
to our becoming ‘connoisseurs of fear’....This book thus offers a unique
break from the status-quo avoidance that surrounds the topic of fear”
[5]
. Yet both authors were imagining not only becoming connoisseurs
of fear for everyone, they were imagining whole new applications of
fearism in fields like Psychology, Psychiatry, Medicine, and Education
etc. Subba’s enthusiasm of this movement is part of a reformist politics
and institutional re-visioning, whereby ideally, as one example, there
would develop a new branch of Psychiatry, informed by fearism, that
would be called Feariatry [6]. Fisher likewise was promoting a reformist
re-visioning of Psychoanalysis and Psychology and other fields that
would be called Fearanalysis and Fearology. And, these were only a
few of their future dreams and new fields of study and applications to
helping the world and its crises [7]. Other young scholars following in

their footsteps would eventually begin shaping their own newly created
fields of analysis, for example, “Eco-Fearism” [8] and others pursuing a
new philosophy of fear based in part on fearism [9].
Exciting as these activities are, Fisher had wanted to create a
Philosophy of Fearism primer text for some years but was reluctant. In
part, he felt there needed to be more research, validation and expansion
of perspectives on a philosophy of Fearism. Having only the dyadic core
founder’s work was good in order to indicate they independently arose
across the world with a lot of coherence in claims. It lends credence to the
ideas, meaning there is some reality to their impetus to centralize fear
in philosophy and human affairs overall. Yet, a better triangulation of
the philosophical conception of fearism would still await more evidence.
Finally, in late 2020 Fisher began to re-examine the work of Samuel
Gillian, a fear(ist) writer-educator he met online in 2004-05. After
years of not thinking much about utilizing Gillian’s work, Fisher was
surprised when he received an email in 2022 by a relative of Gillian’s.
This ignited his intellectual mission to re-read Gillian’s work again and
see how it was relevant to fearism [10]. Turns out it was very relevant,
with Fisher believing that Gillian is one of the most important writers
on fear today (see below). Gillian’s fearwork, going back to 1972, was
conceived independently from Subba’s and Fisher’s. Gillian, the lesser
known, is the now third pillar—that is, the perfect position to add to
create a significant triangulation of validity for a philosophy of Fearism.
And it was even better that Gillian represented another culture and race
(African-American black man), different than Fisher and Subba. So, let
us now turn to some basic biographical background of the three core
fearists that this Primer features.
Desh Subba (1965-)
At age 55, youngest of the fearism-triad of philosophers, Desh Subba

has the unique status of being born and raised in a very poor family
background in the rural environment of Dharan, in the eastern part of
Nepal. He has told his story of not learning the English alphabet (as a

second-language) until he was a teenager: “English alphabet I learned
at the age of 15. At that time I was in class four standard. In class four
we had been taught English” [11]. However, he was very much involved
in the everyday village life and learned to be an especially keen observer
of human behavior. As a very young child he noticed motivations and
that fear was a consistent factor in virtually everything that went on
in nature and society. By 11, he went to a local government school for
his formal education, eventually moving to Kathmandu, to live with
relatives, and to pursue higher education. He has an undergraduate
degree in Business Administration (general @ Tribhuwan University,
Kathmandu. Although, he took several courses for an MBA. Despite the
Westernization of his education with it is colonial values, he always loved
the simple life and peoples of all nations—especially, the Indigenous
peoples.
He has read widely many E. philosophers along with W. which
makes him an integrative thinker. His tribal upbringing and love of
history, psychology, beauty, philosophy and enlightenment—eventually,
all combined with his gift of writing narrative, poetry and fiction. The
best demonstration of his intellectual thinking and creative writing
skill, within the Indigenous-magical world of tribal people and their
wisdom lessons for modern humanity, comes through in his short
“novel based on fearism” entitled The Tribesman’s Journey to Fearless,
published in English in 2015 [12].
Subba moved to Hong Kong a number of years ago to find better
opportunities to work and raise his family. He has worked as a security
guard for a number of years. Beyond the mundane, he also has been
a political-artistic rebel, known to be part of an underground literary
circle in Nepal as a movement for the struggle to free the Nepalese
people from foreign colonial investments, dictatorships and/or other
ideological repressive regimes for decades. He has been critical of
Communism and Marxism mainly because of these lived experiences
in his home country but also elsewhere. It is no wonder that he was
searching for an alternative philosophy for understanding reality/truth
and making sense of the world and for truly freeing the people and their
human potential. Subba eventually called this alternative, Fearism. This
challenging spirit of Subba and his alternative is nicely summarized by
one respondent to Subba’s work: Dr. Achyut N. Jha wrote, “Fearism has
potential to demolish many historical philosophical theories. Fearism
seems to be hope of 21st century” [13]
Since producing his 2014 tome Philosophy of Fearism, he has helped
found the Fearism Study Centre in Nepal (see also in Africa) [13], and
supported financially and as a mentor the teaching capabilities of others
to pass on the Fearism teachings and practices. He has established the
Tilmati Fearism Award in 2018 to honor those who have made the
greatest contributions in that year to the development of the philosophy
of Fearism [14]. Subba has published video interviews, many articles
and has some 10 books out on the topic of fearism (see References
and his Wikipedia page). He has influenced many other (especially
Asian) authors to write and teach about fearism as well, usually not in
English [15].
R. Michael Fisher (1952-)
Age 70, Fisher was born and raised in Calgary, AB, Canada,
son of an immigrant (war bride) mother from Belgium and second-
generation father from Canada. He has peasants and lower-working
class relatives on all sides of his ancestral line. He is one of the first to
attend university. He grew up with a love of fishing, birding, sports,
and music. He had no aspirations for higher education, until he fell in
love with biology in high school and went on to pursue his life-long
education studying environmental issues, evolution, ecology, animal
behavior and eventually more into psychology, anthropology, sociology
and education. He has had many careers but they mostly involved
helping other people. He practiced counseling and became a school
teacher, then adult educator and eventually with a Ph.D. in Curriculum
Design and Pedagogy (The University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
BC). He has two grown up children and lives with his wife in Nanaimo,
BC on the W. coast of Canada.

He has taught many subjects but his love is art, aesthetics, healing
trauma, human potential, wellness, critical thinking, conflictwork,
fearwork and liberation. Fear (and fearlessness) became his focal topic
in late-1989 when he had a powerful mystical experience that revealed
his life-purpose/mission and he co-founded the In Search of Fearlessness
Project and eventually the In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute
(1991-), which he is still Director. The Institute publishes “Technical
Papers” of which Fisher has written over 120 monographs. And recently
since 2018, Fisher founded the International Journal of Fear Studies, of
which he is Senior Editor. His independent scholar status has given him
the freedom beyond restrictions of academic or corporate institutions,
for he can explore creatively and ‘fearlessly’ his transdisciplinary
preferred way of research, teaching and publishing.
He is recognized as one of the world’s leading philosophers on fear,
and has a recent book coming out in the field of educational philosophy,
The Fear Problematique: The Role of Philosophy of Education in Speaking
Truths to Powers in a Culture of Fear. He has published a dozen books
and hundreds of articles and Youtube videos on his teaching, and is
founder and host of the Fearlessness Movement ning on the Internet.
Many academics and professionals have cited his work on fear(ism),
and he has summarized his engagement with fearism philosophy in
an annotated bibliography [16]. He received the Tilmati Fearism Award
in 2019, under the umbrella of activities initiated by Desh Subba. His
best interview on “Fearism” is on the Hermetix philosophy podcast [17].
Samuel Nathan Gillian Jr. (1939 – 2016)
Deceased at the age of 76 years old, Gillian has left a small collection
of, virtually unknown, writing on fear and its management/education.
He was able to get an interview about his first book on American national
radio [18]. For lack of quantity he made up for it in quality. His two books
[19]
compose the bulk of his thought—an intense contribution, often
shocking in its impact because of the way Gillian frames the human-fear
relationship (existentially). Highly influenced by Ernest Becker’s large

body of work [20], it is fair to say that Gillian is original as a thinker in
many ways regarding fear and the human condition but he is Beckerian
in general existential orientation. Yet, he has added a variety of other’s
thoughts, including the mystical non-dualism works of some Eastern
philosophers (e.g., Alan Watts, Jiddu Krishnamurti); and he drew upon
the Bible, Koran etc. as well for wisdom.
Born and raised in the Bronx (New York City), Gillian stayed there
all his life as a black man living in a black neighborhood of largely
African-Americans. He was raised in a poor working class family and
under the influence of Methodist Christianity but in his early adult life
he left formalized religion behind. He was a quiet child/teen generally,
but was also very observant of human behavior and motivation. He
eventually made it to college and university, attaining a Masters degree
in Education (City College of New York). And after a few different
career switches over short periods of time, he settled on becoming an
English teacher in the New York City school system where he taught
middle school during the day for 30 years, and taught essay writing
skills in a Harlem GED program for adults at night for 15 years [21].
His first book, The Beauty of Fear, bio reads:
Understanding language and human behavior has

consumed Sam’s adult life. It was this quest that led
him into researching “fear” as a subject beginning in
1972. Since 1986, he has been conducting motivational
workshops based upon his [fear] research. The workshops
have been presented at educational conferences mainly
to parents of school children....He is working on a book,
currently entitled Fear and Education. It is among four
book projects, another one being a children’s book
about understanding fear entitled The Adventures of
Amazing Grace. [22]
Gillian was also a local activist for various causes in the Bronx
and beyond. He was vocal about the importance of affordable quality
housing (with regulated landlords) for the poor and working class, and

he strongly believed that “No Child Left Behind” legislation was a
good idea but it had no teeth and was a disaster for many children and
schools. He retired in 2002, in part because of failing health, and wrote
his first book, and the second one three years later. At heart, he loved
children and youth, including many hours devoted to his many nieces
and nephews, and was best known as a “teacher” through and through.
One of his nieces wrote about her uncle Sam at the memorial service:
I’ve never known such an intellectually bright individual!

Such an intense thinker....He made the smallest of things
an exercise in knowing, understanding and believing.
My Uncle Sam Challenged the status quo!....I will miss
The Great Thinker of my time. [23]
One cannot deny that this newest addition (an elder) to the core
founders of philosophy of Fearism, brings new gifts, and that he himself
is no longer with us we are aware of presence on another level than the
material—and, we recognize he did not even know of our Fearism
Movement. We officially invite him now as a founder in retrospect
and honor. He started his quest to know everything about the nature
and role of “fear” in 1972, some 17 years before Fisher made the same
commitment, and 27 years before Subba—and, it seems fitting to end
this brief bio introduction of Gillian with his own words he penned in
2002, and one senses a humorous twinkle of both the upsides and the
downsides of such a commitment: “Twenty-nine years of researching
fear had had some beneficial side effects” [24].
Vignettes of the Three Philosophers: Discovering Fearism
Fearism – “the philosophy that fear itself is bringing

into the world.” [25]
Before I write on the “three philosophers” (triad) of Fearism, there

is something I want to share of the kind that comes now and then,
with that ‘ah ha’ moment, the uncanny, where my whole being is struck

with not just the words but something behind the words I utter when
speaking and/or writing about philosophy of Fearism. The above quote
is one of those moments. In my researching to write this section of the
Primer, I was listening to a spontaneous interview I did with James Ellis
(on his Hermitix podcast) near two years ago [26] and I noticed in a new
way what I had just said. The orientation of how I had long-imagined
“fearism” as a philosophy (a la Subba), just reversed itself. I mean that
in a good way but it is a bit shocking at some level. The above quote
claims not that Subba or I made up fearism philosophy all from our
will—or ego—or idea alone. No. The quote above raises at least the
possibility, that the source of Fearism came from the world happening
the way it is (was) happening, and Subba and I were receivers not makers
of the impulse for what needed to be birthed. The gestation was already
there in humanity, or maybe in the universe itself. In other words, it is a
good reversal to shift one’s imaginary at times from the comfortable and
habitual way of thinking of origins and sources and causality. Creation
is two-way, in that sense, it is co-mutual.
In simple terms, the ‘good philosopher’ is paying close attention,
is feeling deeply, is involved—and, is co-mutually creating things
that need (desire) to be created at a particular moment. There is some
mystery to this desiring universe of possibilities. There is an aliveness
to everything. All Being is not inside my head—my will to power—my
ego—my thought. This perspective is how I understand discovering
“Fearism”—not as if it is from one point (human) source. No. Fear
itself brought the philosophy of Fearism and for that reason, it seems to
me, is something to ponder as to: so, “Who is the teacher here?” Is the
teacher me, is it Subba, is it Gillian? Maybe, the teacher is Fear itself ? I
mean Fear with the capital.
In the early years of my meeting the Indigenous scholar-educator,
Four Arrows, I noticed he used the capital on Fear often in his work
[27]
and that has proved to be an interesting gesture, when it comes to
recognizing something, capitalizing it, and yes, making it iconic in
a sense in that process. It is almost, perhaps, a type of conscious and
critical reflection on a major chord of reality (Reality) rather than only
a small piece of it. So, from that day of discovering Four Arrows using
this capitalized Fear, I opened to a new type of respect for fear itself.
Then when I matched that with my historical knowledge that in ancient
Greek society (Sparta) there is evidence that the Greeks at the time had
a temple of Fear [28]. Amongst other reasons, they likely worshipped
there at times knowing the inherent power of fear (e.g., Phobos); and
especially, the soldiers prayed for assistance before they went off to war
against the enemy. That has always occurred to me as a beautiful and
sacred practice in regards to Fear, not just as some partial individual
fear but as Fear itself as something beyond merely human, beyond
merely a creation of my ego—but something of mythic proportion as
well. It put fear into a capital Fear (sometimes personified as deity or
grand, supernatural or extraordinary)—somewhat, just like in secular
fashion we today put a particular city into the symbolic signification of
‘something more’ (important, central, powerful)—in that it is the capital
city of a state, for example. That is how I am thinking, metaphorically
and creatively with this whole issue of capitalizing Fear. One can easily
think materialistically and in psychological-individual utilitarian terms
of efficiency that we have to “manage fear.” Yet, that hardly awakens us
to anything grand but keeps fear rather ordinary and contained, even if
it is a troublesome feeling and phenomenon at times.
However, if one puts Fear in a capital, then to even speak of
“managing” Fear is awkward or even contradictory. That symbolic
semiotic shift creates new possibilities for understanding fear and Fear.
Fisher has always used Fear Management Systems (FMS, for short) to
theorize an evolutionary model—whereby fear-as-system is the basic
unit of reality [29]; as well he has invoked the optional (‘) marks on ‘fear’
and ‘Fear’ for somewhat similar disruptive means to awaken the person
studying this phenomena [30]—acting like a yellow light of warning:
‘Be aware there is likely more here than you think.’ Fisher insists on
amplifying critical awareness on a global scale beyond merely talking
about humans having a fear problem, to Fear Problem. Subba uses both
small and large first letters for fear but Gillian does not.
For historical purposes, when I first saw Desh Subba’s writing,
he nearly always used Philosophy of Fearism—not just when he
was referring to his book title by that name. He was talking about
something beyond a book title. He actually was embodying in his
text a great honoring, emotionally and symbolically, of his subject and
this newly discovered term. In the history of defining fear (Fear), as a
fearologist, I have not seen any other writer on the topic reach creatively
and imaginatively into the depth and breadth of defining and making
meaning of this topic as Subba (2014) and how he opens his text with
21 definitions/meanings of the term Fear [31]. His is an extraordinary
move to ‘blow up the ark’ of traditional wisdom on how to define and
understand the fear phenomena. It changed the fearstory of human
history and it dramatically changed his life because of his willingness
to grow with the phenomena—and to truly open up to intimate and
transformative contact with this new relationship with Philosophy of
Fearism.
I have not always chosen this capitalization gesture in the Primer
or in my work in general; but it is worth pondering what might be
behind this in our future studies in this movement. Calling Fearism
a movement, also is a recognition that this phenomena is something
more than just fearism. In some sense, it is a spirit or maybe we could
call it spirited—and, that is when I think of Philosophia, the goddess
of philosophy, that brings that much needed balancing guidance from
the feminine-side, relative to the preponderant masculine-side, of what
we think of as philosophy. She infuses our thinking, especially as
males, and brings us to a more sensitive thought(fulness) beyond cool
rational logic as the highest virtue. That is what I wish to convey in this
Primer—and in these vignettes—that, there is ‘something more’ going
on beneath and beyond the words fearist may utter. May this spirit of
Philosophia infuse all fearwork always.
From that deep humility and listening, that co-participation in the
world of living systems and intelligences, that is where I believe the
most true and real knowledge and lessons will be gained. Anyways,
that’s a little bit of my discovery and reflection on what my philosophy
re: the nature and role of my own involvement in this movement—of/
and/with Fearism.
Now, let’s shift—into a deep-dive—with the triadic core of this
phenomenon of Fearism in the philosophical sense; the latter, which
has been called the Subbaian-Fisherian approach to the topic. With
time, this will evolve to add Gillian as a triadic approach. So for now
to begin, it is good to locate our (human-philosopher) perspective(s),
and that is what this section of the Primer is going to do—through
vignettes, and a few ‘cases,’ of just how each of the triad come to know
Fear and visa versa.
Fisher (Canadian-Euro white man) and Subba (Nepali brown man)
wrote of their generic background in coming to intellectual pursuits and
their offering via philosophy for a world that is racked with inequities,
caught in great suffering and excess fear, terror and violence:
We both come from lower working class backgrounds

and this has impacted our way of approaching knowledge
and advancing our intelligence. We are both males and
privileged educationally, relative and disproportionately
to women generally in our cultures and this also shapes
our biases. [32]
Being raised poor and often struggling with barely making a living
truly impacts how one observes the world and thinks about what the
real problems are in the world. Gillian (American black man) would
likely concur with this biographical class distinction and its significance
(a la Fisher and Subba). As well, in Gillian’s writing he did at times
refer to the importance of acknowledging male privilege, sexism, and
the value of protecting rights of equality for females (including women
and children). All three core fearists are “progressives” in that sense.
However, a major difference in his perspectives and biases is one that
Fisher and Subba do not face as a limiting life-challenge. Gillian, an
African-American, is located by birth within a line of slavery in US’s
shadowed history. And for him, getting a good education and being a
critical thinker was not merely dangerous because of the white supremacy
in American culture—but it has generational trauma associated with
it, for some five hundred years. Being ‘smart’ (educated) would have
been (and still is to a lesser degree) life-threatening to his and his loved
ones well-being, at some level. It is thus not surprising fear and knowing

were so intricately intertwined in his everyday general attitudes, ideas,
activism and his more rigorous philosophy.
Fisher and Subba continued a biographical-intellectual overview,
revealing their humanitarian purpose:
Our exposure to academic philosophy in its more elite

middle-upper-class forms in academia (especially in the
W.) have been less close to our hearts, as we are simply
looking to draw on philosophy as a way of knowing
that will help the human condition, especially for those
whose lives are overtly driven by fear of survival and
thereby less able to grow and mature towards freedom
(e.g., fearlessness).
Pursuing our intellectual growth and development,

beyond our family genealogies and largely working
class communities’ capabilities, is a privilege we don’t
take for granted. Our intellect, following practical
philosophy (less theoretical) traditions E. and W.,
ought to be used to help the people, and especially the
people who suffer most.
[Fisher notes:] We both come to a philosophy of

fearism without credentials as specialist [professional]
philosophers nor having predominantly studied
in the discipline of Philosophy....My relationship
with Philosophy as a discipline is ambivalent. Even
philosophers are critical of what ‘philosophy’ is and
what the discipline and its institutions have made it
into. I have been critical enough to divorce myself
from the unsatisfactory restrictions of the largely white
masculine elite canon of largely disembodied knowledge
and knowing, academic disciplinarity and careerism of
contemporary W. Philosophy. I prefer a transdisciplinary
path ‘outside’ but along with academia....more aligned

with philo-sophia (love of wisdom) and open inquiry,
more feminine, embodied and nurturing, and more
akin to social philosophy. [33]
All the core three are amateur philosophers—best called organic or

public intellectuals. They serve their communities primarily outside of
the elite walled towers of academia. They are volunteers of knowledge
production. They have had to take on ‘regular jobs’ to survive financially,
while they pursue their love of learning and philosophy in their spare
time. Both Subba and Gillian have degrees and are not as focused on the
epistemological critique of Philosophy itself, as is Fisher. Coming to the
field with a Ph.D. tends to make one extra-vigilant as to the knowledge-
fear-power system of politics that travels in the underground economy
of knowledge, especially in an Information Age where knowledge access
and privilege is a billion dollar industry of competition in late-capitalism.
Gillian especially, is not attempting to be a philosopher nor cosy up
to academics at all. He writes in very plain prose and carefully crafted
text for the populist masses. Subba on the other hand writes for both
populist-academic-professional audiences and enjoys interfacing with
academics. He has devoted his own time and money to attended many
academic conferences giving presentations on philosophy of Fearism.
Fisher is by far the most academic-scholarly of the core three and
he is the most transdisciplinary, while the other two are eclectic and
voracious readers synthesizing knowledge across disciplines at times. All
three core fearist philosophers have predominantly self-published their
own work, and Subba has financed some of Fisher’s publications and
other younger fearist’s publications as well.
Subba has been for many years explicitly self-identifying as a
philosopher as his highest career goal. Interestingly, Subba and Gillian
are literary-types as their primary ground for their careers and thinking.
Fisher is not literary but more an artist in general and has been a
professional (self-taught) fine-art painter in his 30s. Fisher tells of the
people he has met since late 1989, who embrace his fearwork are mostly
people who are x-clergy and English and literary scholars. The outcome
of their inherent gifts brings the triad to love and appreciate the arts and

aesthetics. Fisher is the most postmodern, affective-based, feminine,
feminist, therapeutic, spiritualist, and political-critical writer amongst
them. Subba and Gillian tend to be more modernist rationalist-based
philosophers, although Subba distinctly has a great respect for the tribal-
magical-shamanic and poetic alternative states of consciousness and
realms of knowing as well [34]. Gillian was wanting to write fiction and
even a children’s book on fear. Fisher has several unpublished fiction
manuscripts collecting dust on his shelves.
Unlike Fisher the postmodernist, who is steeped in a relational,
embodied, affective, and feminist paradigm, the other two core fearists
are more individualistic and cognitive-behavioral oriented, when it
comes to practical philosophizing, and managing their lives and fear.
Dozier’s book Fear Itself in 1998 was a potent fear education for many
in the West. But he, like Subba and Gillian, more or less, proposed the
practical intervention: “Reeducating the primitive fear system requires
the repetitive [disciplined] techniques of behavior therapy” [35]. Generally,
their fear advice and brave attitude is more Stoic, speaking in terms of
alignment with W. modernist Enlightenment and/or ancient Greco-
Roman philosophical tradition(s). They would both readily embrace
the following Stoic position:
The slave-turned Stoic [ancient] philosopher, Epictetus,

stated that our chief task in life, if we want to lead a
meaningful or purposeful life, is to focus more on things
within our control and disregard the externals, such as
the opinions of others.
People who realize and practice this understand the

enormous benefits of focusing more on internal reality.
They use their time, energy, and limited resources to
do the things that matter in their lives. [36] [italics added
for emphasis]
The behavioral therapy of Stoic philosophy is to “focus” (discipline)

one’s mind/thoughts and the disruptive feelings of fear; and that will

change your behavior likely for the better. Fear of what other’s think is
beyond one’s control generally—so best not go there and give in to your
neurotic and/or unreasonable or irrational fear in this regard. Rationally
one is to overcome emotions by focus. This tough-minded attitude is
popular today amongst cognitivists and human potentialists, and those
just trying to manage their fears better.
The social fear of being judge and potentially abandoned from the
social norm or group is a major (if not the greatest practical everyday) fear
in human existence as a social species member. Social life is terrifying,
says Gillian repeatedly in his books. Tuan, the human geographer, says
that due to overwhelming chaos always present in the landscapes humans
live in (both natural and social), from time immemorial, fear/terror is
always present; but we repress that fact—and build structures in the
mind and on the landscape that try to manage/contain that existential
anxiety [37]. The core triad of fearists argue this basic existential human-
fear-condition is generally true.
Thus, philosophy of Fearism proceeds upon such an anthropological,
geographical, ecological and evolutionary assumption about motivation
and behavior, and fear’s basic nature and role within our species Homo
sapiens. Although the common framing is that fear is natural and
protects us as a survival mechanism—is that all there is going on?
Fearists pursue this common sense notion further. They also point out,
as do some others who write about fear, that one could just as easily
talk about this as “alarm” or “alertness” to represent the quality of that
protection. But, typically we call it fear—that is, natural fear, or “true
fear,” as De Becker does [38].
Vignette 1: The illustrative vignette of Subba’s thought on fear I
have chosen here revolves around this philosophical issue of where is
fear located? Maybe that is a more important (ontological) question than
what is fear? Whatever the case, Subba’s 21st definitions/meanings of Fear
takes us into the territory of ecological and evolutionary claims, and then
he moves that position to a basic psychological (cognitive) positioning,
which substantially influences his philosophy of Fearism. He wrote,

Hens make their chicks aware when hawks approach....
chicks hide....Signs [on streets] that say “Walk/Drive
carefully” creates fear. Some notices tell us that...[refusal
to obey is] punishable. Fear [at base]...makes people be
careful and aware.
Everything that is available creates fear or has a factor

of fear. [objects themselves humans encounter are
only what they are—in a way they are nature-based
and ‘neutral’ but] When consciousness, knowledge,
conditional reflex, and nature interact with these objects
[e.g., a cave], then they convert themselves into fear....
The more our...knowledge, and consciousness start to
observe it closely [the more], doubting and thinking
about it, the more the cave looks dangerous. The more
we stir our illusions and doubts, the more it increases
fear in our mind. Such fear doesn’t come from anywhere
else but it is within us and wanders out. [39]
It is not that Subba is only arguing that all fear is mind-generated

originally in objects, because some objects/events are externally causing
us to be afraid too. Yet, Subba is decidedly influenced by the cognitivist
and/or science of mind philosophies and rationalism in his accounting
for the world of experience [40]. He would reduce his fearism claim
to: Fear is in the mind. This location of course is highly supported by
neuroscientists who study fear as well. It is a very common ontological
position for articulating the fear phenomenon. In that sense, it is not
unique in itself or a distinguishing feature of a philosophy of Fearism.
The point being, not all thoughts about fear in the philosophy of
Fearism are original, unique, or special—relative to other forms of
inquiry and frames of meaning given to fear. They are overlapping
in many cases because the triad fearists are, wisely, integrating past
knowledge(s) about fear, as well as critiquing it, in pursuit of discovering
fresh new ways to study and understand fear, and Fear. And their aim
is always how to best improve fear management/education.

Vignette 2: Gillian would equally (generally) hold this ontological
position re: fear and mind too. The illustrative vignette of Gillian’s
thought on fear I have chosen here revolves around the problem of “Are
we scaring ourselves to death?” This has been a question raised outside
of the philosophy of Fearism discourses for many years [41]. Gillian
would likely tend to both disagree and agree that that is the problem
with fear. His philosophy of fear(ism), as I interpret it, is much more
concerned about the systematic teaching of a negative attribution to the
word fear itself and to the phenomenon. For him, what is tragic does
involve that we are scaring ourselves to death but it is only a tragedy
(harmful) because we are “all-too-negatively-terrified” [42]. This latter
state is conditioned into use by several sources, but its worst side-effect
is due to repression of our actual natural terror. We ought to be terrified
by life all the time, he argues in his Beckerian way.
So, for Gillian the problem of repression of fear/terror is the real nasty
problem (i.e., tragedy, and the factor killing us)—the problem is not
“scaring ourselves”—we should do so—and so he puts out his existential
radical view in the following manner:
The climate of heightened terror that currently

exists reinforces the misleading notion that fear [and
terror] is exclusively negative and that we can do the
impossible: eliminate fear in order to achieve freedom
from fear....a negative conditioning passed down to
us from our ancestors who mistakenly concluded that
fear is an exclusively negative aspect of life. Tragically,
we continue to pass this negative tradition on to our
children as we teach them to self-destruct by teaching
them how to fear learning in mostly [too-negatively
terrified] negative ways....We’re scared—nay, we’re
terrified—and our fears are too deeply repressed for us
to consciously admit to other an even to ourselves just
how terrified we truly are. Truth terrifies us....[43]

It is not fear that is the disease; it is our extremely
negative reaction to the [natural] terror of existence that
is the disease. [44]
The triad core fearists all agree, as Gillian claimed, there’s been
too much (for too long) teaching only about the negative associations
around fear. It’s a social problem of repression and it has kept us out
of touch with reality via deception and lies, says Gillian [45]. That’s the
tragedy that’s killing us—we won’t admit we’re lying about this lying
(i.e., repression).
Vignette #3- Fisher is equally concerned with repression as a major
negative impact on human motivation and existence. It is also called
dissociation; it is a pathology, especially when chronic. Although his
philosophy of fear(ism) is very close to Subba’s and Gillian’s, there
is a definite difference—for he chooses a much stronger fearanalysis
in which he theorizes and talks about pathology explicitly a lot.
Opposite of Gillian and somewhat nearer to Subba’s view, Fisher offers
a Fearlessness Paradigm as the only way to truly and holistically counter
the insidiousness of the Fear Problem—and worse, is that there is a
grand repression (especially in the West) of the “spirit of fearlessness”
(and the concomitant movement ontologically, from Fear to Fearlessness
as a natural self-system regulation built in to our four billion year
evolutionary heritage as living organisms) [46].
To develop a philosophy of Fearism that is worthy, according to
Fisher, fearism-t must be centrally and equally valued as the conceptual
and phenomenal reality going on all the time. Most fearists downplay
this latter notion, which makes Fisher critical often of their work,
because they tend to downplay pathology generally. In his latest book
with co-author B. Maria Kumar on analyzing resistance(s) to fearlessness
globally, they write of recommendations and a re-orientation for fearists
to think about in their future fearwork:
In Chapter Nine, intrigued by the “uncanny” as an

actual location for Fearlessness, we suggested three
questions could be very useful for advancing knowledge:

(a) Where is Fearism located?, (b) Where is Fear located?
and, (c) Where is Fearlessness located? [47]
These three vignettes of the core founding fearism philosophers

ought to give readers of this Primer a taste for the style and thinking
of each author. It is meant to be a collage more than any systematic
comparison of their work. The next section on Theory gives readers a
chance to dive in even more carefully to how the triad think and to aim
for pulling out the best highlights to craft a strong vision and Theory
(theories), at least in part as this is always in progress, to enable the
student to gain a better grasp of philosophy of Fearism.
Endnotes
1. Fisher, Subba and Kumar (2018), p. xxii.

2. For e.g., Rai (2018) reviewed Subba’s 2014 book and called Fearism a “new vision”
and “Fearism Movement.”
3. Quote from Bikram Bir Thapa, Indian Literary Academy Winner in Reviews in
front matter of Subba (2014).
4. Quote from Dr. Gobinda Raj Bhattari, Central Department of Education English,
T. U. Kirtipur in Reviews in front matter of Subba (2014).
5. Four Arrows (2016b), p. xiii.
6. On “Feariatry,” and the new professional “Feariatrist” for e.g., see Subba (2014),
pp. 156, 160-1; see also Fisher (2016a).
7. See “Three Pillars” integral model in Fisher and Subba (2016a), p. 141; it was
updated as a model in Fisher, Subba and Kumar (2018), p. 100.
8. For e.g., Adhikari, Kalu and Subba (2020).
9. For e.g., Eneyo (2019).
10. Fisher is currently researching and writing an intellectual biography on Gillian.
11. Personal communication, Desh Subba, July 3, 2022.
12. Subba (2015); originally published in Nepalese.
13. Dr. Achyuta N. Jha commented on Desh Subba’s blog post “Existence of Fear
Precedes Essence” by Desh Subba (go to: https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.
com/blog/existence-of-fear-precedes-essence-desh-subba
13. E.g., see https://fearismstudies.blogspot.com/.The Centres in Nepal and Africa
seem not to be functioning in actuality for the last few years; see Nepal activities
at the Centre in earlier years (some cited in Fisher and Subba, 2016a, p. 84).

14. This prize is named after Subba’s mother, who had a great positive influence on
his own life. Fisher won this award in 2019 (see his speech @ Fisher, 2019c).
15. See an out-dated summary in Fisher and Subba (2016a), pp. 84-5.
16. Fisher (2018b).
17. Fisher (2020b).
18. The Tavis Smiley Show, NPR, Sept. 3, 2002 [unfortunately, it is recorded and
stored on NPR archives in an old format that I have not been able to access].
19. Gillian (2002, 2005).
20. In particularly Becker (1973).
21. Excerpted from Gillian (2002), p. 199.
22. Ibid.; Note: he changed the title of the fear and education book to Terrified by
Education; there were no other books beyond his two that were ever written.
His basic (adult version) of the “Amazing Grace” incident that transformed his
life is written up in Gillian (2002), pp. 11-12. In the collection of documents
supplied to me by his surviving wife Bernice Gillian, is an unpublished course
paper (20pp essay) on his early life reflections between 8-17 years of age.
23. In an email sent to the memorial service by Gillian’s niece, Dana Chambers,
Jan. 26, 2016.
24. Gillian (2002), p. 168.
25. Fisher (2020b) at the 17:20—17:30 mark of the audio broadcast.
26. Ibid.
27. E.g., Jacobs (1998).
28. Tuan (1979), p. 35.
29. E.g., Fisher (2010).
30. E.g., Fisher (1995).
31. Subba (2014), pp. 13-19.
32. Fisher and Subba (2016a), p. 46.
33. Ibid.
34. E.g., Subba (2015).
35. Dozier (1998), p. 237.
36. Subba is part of a Stoic philosophy group; quoted excerpt from a recent (n.d.)
posting by Jackson Weako, a black new Ph.D. from the Stoic Facebook group.
37. Tuan (1979), see Chapter One: Introduction.
38. E.g., De Becker (1997).
39. Subba (2014), p. 19.
40. Although Fisher has made this claim about Subba’s biased heavily cognitive
approach, Subba (2014) would not deny his own claim “As all these things
[human reality] are the result of mindset, fear can be removed through the
balance of mind” (p. 330). Fisher, Subba and Kumar (2018) have also together
claimed Subba’s fearist perspective “has been traditionally born underlain by his
own transdisciplinary and literary/poetic sensibility, yet a strong psychological

cognitive-behaviorist and/or philosophical science of mind perspective and
discourse hegemony” (p. 15).
41. The earliest systematic research (20th century) on how fear collectively brings
our species’ health into being compromised—if not killing us—at least, can
be traced to the mid-1980s and revelations that came from more technical and
academic studies of the “culture of fear” phenomena. However, Cohl (1997)
is a good first well-written popular primer text on this problem of too much
(toxic) fear—which, Fisher has now and then called a problem (pathology) of
the “cycle of fear.”
42. Gillian (2005), p. 280.
43. Ibid.
44. Gillian (2002), pp. 150-1.
45. E.g., Ibid., p. 17.
46. E.g., see Fisher (2010).
47. Fisher and Kumar (2021) pp. xv-xvi.

Fearism Theory
I t is a plausible case made throughout this Primer that the

school of philosophy of Fearism is driven in part by fear itself
and the ubiquitous impacts (good and bad) that it has upon us as
individuals and societies. Yet, the other less well known case is that
this school of thought is driven in its own development by tensions
and conflicts within itself and from outside the movement of Fearism.
A few examples of the latter will be provided here for insight into the
dynamics of challenge and change for Fearism currently and in the
future. As the title of this section suggests, the following material will
be “theoretical”—however, it is also practical because theory makes a
difference in everything we do, whether we know we are using theory
or not.
From a philosophy of Fearism there derives several theories of fear(ism).
Over time, the theories create and validate practices of fearism. It also
ought to be one big feedback loop, whereby in the end the very philosophy
of Fearism will itself be changed by practices and theories. This
feedback fluidity was built into the conceptualization of a philosophy
of Fearism in the Subbaian-Fisherian co-joint discussions and writing.
Both philosophers wanted to prevent ideologism from setting in via too
rigid boundaries and rules. All social and consciousness movements in
history have had this problem of their own internal politics and the need
to stabilize and confirm one’s own positioning and ideology.
Resisting the ideologism is one thing, but the dyad of philosophers
(Fisher and Subba) wanted some structure(s) and universals as guiding
principles. However, at this time, no such document of agreement has
been forged that is a nice clear picture of a philosophy of Fearism. There
is also no one training and certification program for Fearism overall.
Someday that may change. One gathers in and interprets, and practices
and re-thinks all the time what is a philosophy of Fearism and indeed,
where is it located? How would one know they have arrived at such a
D49E
philosophy and feel secured by it? Mostly, the philosophy of Fearism, if
anything, may be comforting as human beings manage fear/terror (in
excesses)—but, it is not some golden cura that forever or perfectly erases
the negative effects and affects of fear, Fear (‘fear’ or ‘Fear’)—that is
fearism-t.
Even to introduce the topic in the above paragraph is challenging.
How to keep this simple for a Primer? Not an easy task. By necessity
the dyad of founders of this new philosophy knew that a new (often
unfamiliar) fear vocabulary would be required. That itself, presents
enormous challenges, to keep up with it, to clarify it and find agreement
amongst fearists. Typically, Glossaries in fearist books are unsystematic,
although useful—but, for research purposes there is not yet enough
conformity to know exactly what is what in the whole domain of
terms and concepts and theories under the umbrella of a philosophy of
Fearism [1]. With this caveat in mind, the reader is advised to not become
overly concerned about all the technical terms right away and also not to
try to change them, without spending a good amount of time studying
the philosophy of Fearism. It may take years to really get the feel for
what this philosophy is all about.
Understandably, that is not a discipline most people want to commit
to, especially at the beginning. So, in this section of the Primer, the
attempt is made to give some of the breadth and depth of the Theory
(theories) surrounding a philosophy of Fearism but not to get hung up
on too much detailed technical analysis. One way to introduce this
topic is through exploring, somewhat speculatively, but also through
quoting from critics of Fearism. After this, a short description of basic
assumptions and principles (fairly well agreed upon) is offered to fill in
the blanks about this philosophy.
What Philosophers Would Think of Fearism?
The above question is not just abstract and applicable for philosopher-
types and their more abstract and technical thinking and critiques. The
implicit, if not hidden, question is: what do other philosophers think

of fearists? And by extension, what does anyone who is a teacher of
fear management/education in some form, from any other school of
thought, think about fearists and their work? Do they think they are
‘obsessed with fear’, belong to ‘a cult,’ and are dangerous to the helping
fields; or are they impressed by the ethical sincerity, commitment and
effectiveness of fearists to help with the problems of fear in this world?
Then the question arises in all these other questions: But what actually
makes a fearist a fearist?
There is bound to be an upside and downside to becoming a
fearist—one devoted to the philosophy of Fearism. As student of Desh
Subba’s, Osinakachi Akuma Kalu (OAK) in 2017 engaged me (Fisher,
in Canada) from his African homeland (Nigeria), then age 24, with an
invitation to write an endorsement section in his second book on fear
(and fearism and fearology) [2]. Communicating only by a few emails, I
recognized Kalu was a “soul brother,” as I addressed him in the text. I
easily recognized he sounded as much mission-centered as I have been,
especially in my ‘born again’ days. Kalu was wrapping up his Masters
degree in Philosophy. I wrote for Kalu’s newest book:
More or less, he [Kalu] said he was dedicating his life

and career to the critical study of fear. His goal was to
help all humanity overcome this great barrier (‘beast’)
[beast is his term from his first book on fear] that inhibits
human potential....To keep this short, I will say a few
things I would recommend to OAK as a budding ‘father
of fearism philosophy’...as he says in his new book—in
“the first stage.” [3]
The rest of my long endorsement included the financial struggles of

making a life-career passion around a topic that most people did not want
to hear about. I was somewhat warning OAK of the likely consequences
of becoming a fearist, never mind a (newest) father of Fearism. In
retrospect, my piece was an initiation document. It won’t be an easy
course. That is one thing that makes a fearist a fearist. Guaranteed, they
will struggle on the margins of legitimation, financially and otherwise,

not only with Philosophy as a discipline but with many others. They will
find it near impossible to find a big publisher interested in their work.
It will be very slow to spread the word. There will be critics, mostly
quiet and withdrawing, a few more vocal. Many I have seen who begin
totally committed to the critical study of fear(ism) end up finding other
occupations, other topics to write about, and other ways to live.
A Few Fearists’ Imperatives
If Fearism, is all about fear, as this Primer opened in the first

section, then the fearist practitioner has to be aware they have a few
fearist’s imperatives:
1. they not only want to apply philosophy of Fearism as

information to educate themselves and others; but
they want to create and utilize methods/techniques
derived from the philosophy and theories that
enfold themselves with this philosophy,
2. they ought to be practitioners who understand

that it is okay to make money and gain career
status and prestige under this label of practicing
philosophy of Fearism; but they need to study the
philosophy and theories ongoing to ensure they
understand it is a social philosophy that requires
disciplined inquiry and research-based attention,
maturity beyond one’s ego-needs, and engagement
with a community of other fearists where ethics of
doing this fearwork is utmost,
3. they need to take risks and be honest and bold;

and be humble when appropriate to learning
from everyone something potentially ‘new’; being
nice and friendly only does not make a critical

thinker/philosopher—same applies to philosophy
of Fearism, where critiquing fellow fearists is part
of the way to grow as a fearist but also to help the
school of thought to grow cooperatively yet with all
the due tensions of differences
The more one studies the diverse meanings of fearism, including

populist notions while others are more academic, it is evident that
fear is equally all about fear(ism). A distinction ought to be made
between Fisher’s original “fearism” sociocultural (political) ideology
designation and Subba’s original “fearism” as a psycho-philosophical
(literary) designation. By 2014, both authors came to join their versions
of fearism as a solidarity, and with an addendum “theory of fearism” [4]
overall which synthesizes their different views and theories. The latter,
points to a range of critical-holistic thinking about the nature and role
of fear in ways that are often postmodern and newly minted, so as to
better understand fear, the self, society and how to (re-)design a better
future for all.
Frequently Asked Questions: 19. Can someone call themselves

a “fearist” and only study fear but not fearism? They can but
that is not what makes a true fearist, according to the philosophy
of Fearism foundational Assumptions and Principles (see
below). Also, remember that being called a “fearist” is populist
derogatory talk for a person who is too afraid and spreads fear.
The challenging issue with distinguishing the true fearist from
the slang version in the populist discourses is actually not that
easy to make. 20. Do true fearists get accused of causing more
fear unnecessarily by focusing on fear in their philosophy, study
and practices? Yes. But there is no explicit published case of this
happening. Yet, you can bet there are many who think this—that
is, think that true fearists are fearmongering in just a different
form. It is sort of a true criticism.

The true fearist is always bringing up people’s fear by talking
about fear so much. It is a real problem because most people fear
fear itself and want to escape from thinking about it. That’s an
ethical and philosophical dilemma that the fearists have not yet
fully worked out how they are going to deal with this under the
philosophy of Fearism context.
A Few Theories Within Fearism
For purposes of a Primer, this is brief. There are way too many
aspects to go into here, on what makes a theory of fearism (Fearism).
Keep in mind, the reality is there are several theories. But a few major
aspects of this include the following, as well as what Subba in 2014
outlined at the end of his book (see below):
1. a good theory of fearism would be based on data

collected, ideas shared amongst peers, publications
on the theory, critiques offered as rejoinders, idea-
synthesis over years and empirical testing; but also
sometimes go with an intuitive hunch or vision.
One fairly nascent, and central theory of fearism, which is quite

prominent in all the core founding fearists (Subba, Fisher, Gillian)
is that: The better treatment of fear problems (and their concomitant
symptoms, diseases) is likely to be actualized when fear is not seen as only
one of the many emotions, and/or is not seen as an emotion alone.
This theory has not been fully articulated and defended. However,
there are several citations in Fisherian and Subbaian publications to
make this claim. Yet, for simplicity and our Primer purposes, it is worth
citing Gillian’s succinct view around this theory. Recall that there are
some 80+ years of collective research and thinking that have gone into
this theory by the triad—independently, in agreement more or less.
Gillian carefully analyzed English word meanings, re: the problems of

being able to trust even current dictionary definitions of fear. And he
concluded with his own view:
Another major reason we and, therefore, lexicographers

[who compose dictionaries] have for refusing to connect
caring with fearing is that we know that we care for
our loved ones....Fear is not absent from any human
emotion. Love like all of our other emotions such as
hatred, excitement, anger, sadness, joy, etc., is based in
fear. Fear is not, as we have been conditioned to think,
simply one of our human emotions. Fear is the basis for
all emotions, [5]
Philosophically this theory of fearism (one amongst many) becomes

interesting as to why there are so few thinkers who have posited this
notion making “fear” absolutely unique—not just a regular emotion of
the list of emotions. A sub-set of the above theory would have to include
another of the philosophy of Fearism theories (again, nascent but found
in all the core founding fearists): The mis-education of fear in societies in
general is caused by fear itself; that is, a fear-based motivational drive to not
discover the truth about the human relationship with fear. Various fearists
may articulate this, including those outside the philosophy of Fearism
school of thought. For the triadic fathers of Fearism however, there
is a definite sense that repression, denial, dissociation is foundational
to this mis-educating; and, especially, mis-educating that fear is only
negative in impacts and not positive also. There are many other angles
and corners beneath this theory of fearism, again, far beyond the scope
of this Primer.
Briefly, any theorist and/or fearist engaging with fearism (Fearism)
ought to consult the classic text on philosophy of Fearism as the best
reference overall. This is Subba’s 2014 book by that title. In his Chapter
31 one finds an excellent overview of the Subbaian Fearism perspective,
and especially it is essential to note the last two pages of that chapter as
he lists 14 points of Fearism. I have chosen only a couple points of the
14 to reproduce here. As well, there is a key preliminary introduction to

fearism philosophy that sets out some of the parameters and limitations
on being a fearist doing this kind of fearwork. Subba wrote of this social
philosophy (theorizing in the last sentences),
Comprehension of fearism alone is insufficient in life.

[in other words, it is not an explanation and guide for
everything]....Life is surrounded by fear. It is trapped
inside. In fact, fearism denotes excavation, investigation,
interpretation, understanding...behaviour, application...
Still more investigation and research on it and its
application are necessary....The more we study fear
in depth, the more mysterious it is found to be. Vast
knowledge is still being acquired. It can have a huge
contribution to making life brighter. [6]
Some Philosophical Assumptions and Principles
Subba then proposes 14 guiding points (assumptions and principles)

for “fearism as a theory” (his words)—here are just three points:
1. Fear is a foundation for almost all philosophies

and theories [but this dominant component of
motivation is not admitted and,]
2. Philosophies can be studied or de-philosophised

through fearism. Then it is easier to understand the
reasons and circumstances of [the] invention [and
intention] of philosophies. [this is Subba’s meta-
philosophical perspective and critique—he later
writes in another book on this, expanding fearism
further, as “trans philosophism”]
3. Fearism is a philosophy that tells us about where fear

begins, what fear does, and how we can reduce it. [7]

Again, it is important to recognize in the Primer that there is
a distinction between the various forms of Fearism as developed by
the triad of founders of fear(ism)—Fisher, Subba, Gillian. It is also
important to remember they overlap in commonalities as well. Gillian
of course, never did have the opportunity to join in the dialogue of
Subba-Fisher (E. and W.). Yet, this Primer is the first introduction of
the triad, and so below are a few central philosophical assumptions and
principles that all three have in their fearwork.
They assume that philosophy of fear is more important than
psychology of fear, but you need both to be effective in solving some of
the worst fear problems. This is not a far out claim, because Philosophy
is the older cousin of the two disciplines by far and has traces of vast
wisdom and experience which the newer cousin Psychology does not
have—that is, unless the latter draws heavily upon the former. This
point of vertical order of wisdom on Fear is a first principle in philosophy
of Fearism.
How that relationship of Philosophy to Psychology (and all the other
disciplines) is yet being worked out through time and with experience—
as philosophy of Fearism grows and gains more legitimation. They
assume as well, that the tension or even conflict between the disciplines
is to be expected. This raises the second principle, which is that of
generosity as foremost when developing and presenting philosophy of
Fearism—that is, with its inter- and transdisciplinary (holistic-integral)
embrace of all kinds of ways of knowing. There is no one expertise on
Fear found anywhere. This assumes that Fear and fear(ism) is incredibly
complex, and typically this is ignored or denied by many who engage fear
as a topic. They want to reduce it. Philosophy of Fearism says, “no”—it
is critically important to resist that reductionism (third principle) from
the start of trying to research and understand the nature and role of fear
(Fear)—and fearism (Fearism).
They assume that the total erasure of “fear” is not possible nor
would it be advisable. Conquering fear or making it a ‘beast’ or ‘enemy’
in total narration and discourse would be a wrong story to proceed
with this subject. This is because fear/self is a very intimate unit of
analysis and so there has to be respect for fear/self all the way through
a philosophy of Fearism, for there to be compassion with wisdom in
the analysis and interventions. This object/subject (fear/self) claim is
one source of compassion at the base of inquiry into the concept of fear
(Fear)—thus, this is a fourth principle. And, there could be many others
derived but this is good enough for the new fearist to proceed upon. It
is exciting in this year 2022 to have come to a point where we now have
a triangulation of three core fearist philosophers, Subba, Fisher, Gillian
to study and synthesize together. Yet, that alone is not enough. We also
have to look at the critics of Fearism to round out the bigger picture of
the reality of what is going on with fear(ism) these days.
Some Critics of Fearism
Are there critiques of Philosophy of Fearism inside the movement?

Yes. And are there critiques by others outside of this school of thought?
Yes. Subba recently has told me that he does not recall any memorable
published full-on critiques of Fearism. In both cases, more minor
critique on some points are not very many and not substantial. That
said, good criticism is essential for this new philosophy and movement
to grow and mature.
For starters, it ought to be overtly admitted that within this school
of philosophy of Fearism not all participants within will have the exact
same interests or ideas of what is best in how to proceed with fear(ism)
work and/or will they all like each other and get along. Being pluralistic
and transdisciplinary at heart, philosophy of Fearism will be more
tolerant to all kinds of members and their thoughts generally. However,
there are definitely some differences in the details of thought of the
three founding fearists.
The differences are several but it is evident since 2014 that Subbaian
Fearism is the milder and least confrontative of the three, with recent
exceptions [8]. He typically (a Nepali-Easterner) never critiques his fellow
fearists but prefers a more fatherly role as mentor or merely to be a
humble peer and support person. He plays that role very effectively.
Fisher-Gillian (Westerners) are more confrontative and their very basis

of critical philosophy is more radical in some ways. They both have a
strong position that people “lie” and don’t know they are lying, due to
repression. This is not a light criticism. For Fisher-Gillian it would not
be held back from being applied potentially to the fearists in the school
of thought of Fearism itself. However, they are not intending to be cruel;
but they are forthright in their criticisms.
Gillian’s work in some ways is even more radical than Fisher’s and
that’s likely because of his sharp intellect but also his African-American
upbringing and ancestral direct connections to slavery for 500 years
in the USA. How could a black man trust any white man is not lying
about social reality, for instance? These extreme contexts influence
philosophers and their approach and style. Being a conscious “Black”
man in the USA makes one very radical often, although from Fisher’s
study of Gillian’s work, this philosopher is not extremist by any means,
and is rather very ordinary and mainstream. Subba is likewise. On the
other hand, Fisher is the full-out committed artist-prophet, who stepped
out the comforts and securities of ‘normal’ society in the early 1980s
and lives a bohemian life in the borderlands. This marginalization has
a downside, but the upside is that it led Fisher to develop a very potent
philosophy of fear(ism) and fearlessness, without mainstream, financial,
and/or academic compromises.
And, on that last note, Gillian is dead against any notion of
fearlessness [9]; but Subba embraces the concept [9] and promotes it in
his own way—albeit, not in the radical fashion of Fisher’s approach.
So, clearly there are differences and when people come to Fearism and
attempt to grok what is going on in this school of philosophy. It ought
to be no surprise they will be attracted to some parts and likely turned
off by some other aspects of it.
No doubt the fact that all three of the core founders are secularists
practicing no religion is for some people inside and/or outside the
movement, a place for criticism or at least it will not feel like Fearism
is welcoming to their religion. That is not true in principle because the
transdisciplinary and pluralist-holistic approach embraces the nature

and role of magic, myth, religion (and spirituality) by necessity. Religion
as faith, at its best core, exists for good reasons and that it has provided
much of human’s historical development, and cultures with, more or
less, functional fear management systems. And, like all institutions,
religion is susceptible to hegemonic and violent ideologism as well.
Gillian is particularly savvy to the religions of the Middle-East (with
his Christian background) and he is not afraid to look to support for
examples in the Bible for wisdom about fear. Subba, from a fearism
perspective, has been more critical of the Bible [10].
Probably the best articulation of the tension and conflict in
philosophy of Fearism comes in the book by Fisher, Subba and Kumar
(2018). In their opening chapters they bring forth important theoretical
issues of debate on the larger scale and they imply this also as having
parallel influences within Fearism. They wrote,
The human Fearstory, as we refer to it, is complex. And

not everyone agrees on the definition of fear, never
mind agreeing upon the ways humans have related to
fear and managed fear with differential effectiveness
over the ages and across cultures. The debates will
continue, and our views in this book are no different,
they are debateable and all generalizations require
further thought and research to test and improve
their stability and rigor with time. However, we also
believe, “scientific” research is not the only kind valid.
Philosophy has a great role to play in understanding all
phenomena that has to do with the human emotions
and mind....Philosophy of Fearism, our focused “lens”
for this book, is a particular kind of philosophy not yet
fully tried out....The philosophy of fearism directs this
inquiry—even if such a focus on fear may seem strange
or too narrow to be valuable, or to be sane. [11]

Frequently Asked Questions: 21. What does Fearstory mean? It
is a term coined by Fisher some years ago when he was noticing
the big debates in academia and in feminist standpoint theory
that if humans continue to talk about History—this gives focus
on “His” story. The other reality is that indeed men have written
near most all of history throughout time, especially when it was
put into print and with the invention of the printing press. All
history being highly crafted by one gender (sex) perspectives is
not a healthy balance. So feminist standpoint theory argued
that another position of stance on experience, reality and the
story (stories) humans tell about themselves ought to be labeled
Herstory—this gives focus on “Her” story. This intervention was
a brilliant shift of possibilities to make the Human story more
accurate and in doing so could free us from the overly dominant
histories of patriarchy. Fisher took this analogy and thought
to take it one step further. If as Subba and himself had argued
in the philosophy of Fearism that “fear” itself had been largely
decentered and omitted from the forefront of history, then maybe
a corrective would be to take what he called a Fearless Standpoint
Theory, and from that position, as well as the Subbaian Fearism
stance there would be legitimate cause to create Fearstory as the
new way for humans to understand their experience, cultural
evolution and reality itself. 22. Has anyone else adopted this
standpoint and shift to writing Fearstory? Not really directly,
but the Subbaian philosophy of Fearism is a good start in that
direction.
Most relevant in this 2018 book by these three keen fearists is the
fact that Figure 1 shows the competing “multiple discourse perspectives”
that can and are involved in any inquiry. Fisher created this chart to
show that one can take Conservative to Radical to Transformative
discourse paths when studying fear(ism)—and, in fact, he is saying that
philosophy of Fearism has all of these competing within it as a school

of philosophy already [12]. No other fearism book or article has made
this overtly clear of the tensions and conflicts going on. Although, that
book did not go into more systematic detail. This section of the Primer
is probably the most detail given to criticism within Fearism movement.
The most substantive within Fearism critiques occurred in 2019-20
in one initial articles and two rejoinders, published in the International
Journal of Fear Studies, between Fisher and Michael Eneyo (a Nigerian-
born black philosopher of fear and fearism). This exchange is very
important to study for the keen student of Fearism. No one in the
Fearism movement has piped in with their views on this heated exchange.
It is one of the problems I (Fisher) see in the entire school of Fearism, is
the passivity in regard to conflict within. Fisher started the exchange by
studying, and critiquing a number of Eneyo’s critiques of “fearism” and
“Fearlessness Movement” in his two major books (especially, Fisher’s
views) [13]. This critique was delivered even though Eneyo, self-identified
as a fearist himself, highly respected the Subba-Fisher contributions to
the philosophy of fear in general. Eneyo published a rebuttal [14] and
Fisher offered a short return rebuttal [15]. That ended the conversation
with some frustration on both sides.
Fisher’s biggest critique overall was that Eneyo ignored too many
key aspects and did not really understand Subba’s or Fisher’s fearism
philosophy; and especially, did not understand Fisher’s “Fearlessness
Paradigm,” which frames everything he does and writes. Eneyo disagreed
and put forth more questioning of things, of which Fisher believed were
not consonant enough actually to what Fisher was claiming. And thus,
it was like Eneyo had made a ‘straw man’ to burn but that was a bad
representation of Fisher’s (and somewhat Subba’s) fearwork in the first
place. Fisher also claimed that Eneyo problematically denies his own
disciplinarity, his valuation re: the absolute of Love and Unity, and how
they are part of a Christian theological tradition—and, are influencing
his own biased views of fear(ism). Note: Fearism has downplayed the
love card from the beginning—and, all three core fearists in this Primer
are, more or less, consistent on this attitude and philosophical position
re: the Love and Fear issue. Eneyo resented the Fisher critiques, denied

his religion had anything to do with his philosophy and felt Fisher’s
critiques were unwarranted.
Fisher has continued with a background low-profile critique of
Fearism and philosophies of fear for decades even before meeting Subba.
The essence of this critique has two branches, not necessarily related:
(a) there is a lack of feminist perspective and, (b) there is too much
fear-positivism [16]. There is not room here to go into this in any detail.
The only thing worth saying is that Fisher knows that “fear” will
nearly always be pre-scripted to fall into the category of a psychological
emotion. Fearists do this as well. Fisher is most resistant to that idea
and assumption. That said, the writing on the philosophy and history
of emotions is almost entirely dominated by men (particularly white
men). There is no feminist perspective within that camp of thought
and it has largely continued unabated and uncritiqued in philosophy
of Fearism. Fisher asks critically, why would we trust men to be experts
on emotion, when men writing these philosophies (on emotion, fear,
fearism) are typically part of patriarchal societies and men in those
societies it is generally agreed are conditioned not to be in touch with
their emotions—so, why would they be in touch with fear—and, do all
the writing on fear nearly? This is a serious (gender and epistemological)
problem in fear studies [17].
A number of minor critiques have been published over the years that
take on the fearwork of Subba. No one has yet reviewed these altogether
and made a synthesis. A few cases are worth reporting here for reference
as to the kinds of concerns that other philosophers and thinkers may
have who are outside of the school of philosophy of Fearism. On the less
severe end of criticism one reviewer of Subba’s 2014 tome, noted many
positive things but thought the book was not professionally organized
and it had the troublesome “man” as a gender bias throughout the text
[18]
. A number of critiques were offered in 2019 when Subba published a
blog “Existence of Fear Precedes Essence,” where he argued that fearism
study is a reconfiguring of philosophy itself never mind the relationship
of fear with humans. This is worth reading, as well as the Comments
from philosophers and others [19].

[Dale White critiqued:] I do believe you are correct
in the assertion, fear is a guiding principle in the lives
of people. Also, this fear is to be embraced for the
good it can achieve. However, by your assertion you
do show fear is an essence. Which proves Plato’s claim
essence precedes existence. Fear is but a taught feeling
or essence. If one is never to be taught what is fearful
and what is not fearful, then it is believed this person is
without fear. Without the existence of fear, the essence
cannot control the actions. Society will in turn, I am
sure, guide this person to know what fear is and is not.
However, then shouldn’t we again refer back to the
original assertion of the essence fear is learned. Can not
the essence of a thing or person be brought forth before
that which will exist?
[other critique is raised by White and others, for example

P. Severini, wrote in response to this same article:] I
often asked for a theoretically stronger contribution
from Desh, and I have to say that this post goes in
the right direction.... I’m still not convinced at all
that fear is the ground of existence, but for sure those
reflections can be a good practical enhancement of a
secure existence and an authentic use of freedom.
Although no direct criticism is launched by the above thinkers

at Fearism per se, they are more or less challenging Subbaian Fearism
on more specific philosophical grounds—for example, “I’m still not
convinced at all that fear is the ground of existence”—and, Subba would
definitely disagree and continue to make his Fearism assumption based
on: fear is the very ground of existence. In his latest book Subba reinforces
this grand ontological claim (contra the Bible): “I say knowledge is fear
and God is fear too” [20]. Eventually, such a radical fearontological claim
will bring some critics to challenge Fearism. There has been a recent
philosopher who challenged Subba’s newest book Trans Philosophism,

which is his extended Fearism, branching into more domains of re-
visioning. Olson wrote,
I just read your book on Trans-Philosophism. This time

around it looks like [y]our ideas got a little out of control.
You started introducing concepts you didn’t really argue
for, and some claims simply needed substantiation.
There was one by Marx, for example, that just didn’t
sound right. You also said Socrates, Plato and co. were
Existentialists. Existentialism was highly contextualized
as a post-WWII phenomenon and can’t be construed as
correct. [21]
Again, there is no critique of philosophy of Fearism itself, but more

critiques about the level of scholarship and some disagreements on
categorization of philosophies and some other critiques around the
focus of this new philosophy—for example, one critique raises some of
these issues:
Ambitious as it may, it can only be, as I humbly see it, a

starting point (albeit an interesting one). It leaves many
critical questions open, and it does get carried away by
the majesty and grandeur of its scope, given its relatively
reductivist project. To opt for a singular lens of fear
to understand human motivations, constructions and
endeavours is the first hurdle that immediately comes to
mind. Many critical questions can be asked here, such
as the relevancy of fear in all philosophy, or whether
other emotions play a[n] [equivalent] part....This
then brings us to a field of contemporary philosophy
neglected by the book, the philosophy of emotions.
Given the work’s affective expression of human
endeavour and evolutionary ethics, it is regrettable that
such a key field of philosophy that engages directly
with this is not discussed. As mentioned before, the

success of this project requires comprehension of all
of the fields it attempts to cover, and while complete
comprehension is too much to ask, given the scope,
basic comprehension must be held to account. Current
work in the philosophy of emotions can give us insights
as to what sort of relationship emotions (and fear) has
with our biology, values, agency, and epistemological
contributions. More analysis on fear and emotions
would be required to get the project going. Relevantly
and unfortunately, there are a couple impressions given
by Subba that are simply inaccurate. I will simply raise
two. One, contrary to the picture the book paints,
philosophy has not been silent on questions of fire and
weapons.... Two, there are philosophers who write and
express extensively about the conservation of the planet,
that work with health science, and health care. It would
seem that the long-cultivated misrepresentation of a
philosopher, whether dressed in togas wandering and
speculating from far away, or mesmerised with their
own thoughts in an armchair in front of a fireplace
needs updating. Philosophers are already engaged,
rightly so, in the practical application of our thoughts
and theories upon our lives.
Trans Philosophy may be claiming to be the next step of

philosophy, but I worry that Philosophy has long moved
on. I believe that Trans Philosophy is not the next step,
but merely a step into a specific direction of Philosophy.
It is not breaking into new ground as it ambitiously
claims, but in my opinion, making its way forward, as
many philosophers are doing, into another direction of
expanding our insight into the world. [22]
Another critic of Subba’s 2014 tome, noted, “he [Subba] sometimes

waxes hyperbolically.” This critic noted, although he generally supports

Subba’s premise re: fear, “While mentioning Mr. Subba’s philosophy
and my support of it, a friend vehemently argued against it, saying that
we should fear nothing, not even fear itself.” On the positive-side, this
critic applauds Subba’s innovation:
Since Mr. Subba concludes likewise, his philosophy

is old in that respect. In other ways, his work is new
and innovative. First consider his coining the words
fearist, fearism, and fearology. Though no dictionary
currently contains these words, they perfectly describe
Mr. Subba’s construct and body of thought.... Though
I disagree with some of his minor premises, his major
premise is undoubtedly true, which should be the
reader’s focus. [23]
Another critic wrote of Subba’s problematic and radical metaphysical

orientation and focus:
Subba does not go into a big metaphysical explanation of

why fear is ever present. But he does go into everything
in human existence and our daily lives, our history.
Every action we take stems from fear.... This is a new
approach to fear that is very radical and controversial,
the idea that one could be rational about one’s fears and
you yourself can mediate it. There are radical ideas in
philosophy of fearism that a lot of mental diseases like
depression, it’s not a depression as we currently view
it. Depression should not be treated like depression,
because depression like everything else stems from fear,
so it should be treated like fear.... So, the world should
establish a fearology to deal with mental problems that
stems from fear. This idea is very controversial and
highly radical.... The big criticism towards philosophy
of fearism, is a criticism against similar philosophies.
Those are the philosophies that reduces all in the world

to one concept like everything is sex, everything is
power, everything is process, or everything is fear and
so on. Reducing everything in human existence to one
general concept makes stuff much easier and we have
been doing this for a long time, in the entire history of
philosophy, especially in metaphysics. In metaphysics,
philosophers since the beginning have sought after the
first principle, or first cause, first mover and so on....
These reductional philosophies have received their share
of criticism and that criticism can also be hurled at the
philosophy of fearism. [24]
I know of only one critique that was distinctly angry and resentful
that Subba was mis-educating people and undermining the struggles
(of the Left) and the philosophy of Marxism with his new Fearism
movement and philosophy [25]. There was also one academic specializing
in terrorism who thought fearism was undermining their field and
conceptualization paradigm, of which Fisher responded to in “defense of
fearism” [26]. So, in general, Fearism has not yet been given a systematic
critique as a philosophy itself [27]. There may be many reasons, but one
of the reasons is that it is just not well enough known, or taken seriously,
in academic circles and wider circulation.
Endnotes
1. Probably the most complete (though somewhat outdated) new vocabulary for
Fearism is Fisher (2019a).
2. Kalu (2017).
3. Fisher (2017b) in Kalu (2017), p. 33.
4. “Towards a Theory of Fearism” (Fisher, 2014) and see up-dated annotated version
of that document in Fisher and Subba (2016a) Chapter Four.
5. Gillian (2005), p. 19.
6. Subba (2014), p. 332.
7. Ibid., p. 333.

8. Subba (2021) is definitely his most critical hard-hitting writing—especially, see
his “Key critic notes” as he goes after others views on “power” and states his own
fearism view where he says “power” is a “core concern of Fearism” (pp. 427-8).
9. “Mastery of fear does not mean fearlessness. It does not mean getting rid of
fear, getting beyond fear, or living without fear....there is no such state as
fearlessness...” (Gillian, 2002, pp. 22-3). See Fisher (2020c) for an initial review
of the correspondence of Fisher and Gillian in 2004-05 and Fisher’s critiques
of Gillian’s work.
10. See Subba (2021), p. 426. He has been working on a fearism re-interpretation of
the Bible for years.
11. Fisher, Subba and Kumar (2018), pp. xxii-xxiii.
12. Ibid., p. 14.
13. This acceptance by Subba is found in his 2014 and 2015 books and in co-writing
I (Fisher) have done with him for several years.
14. Fisher (2019d).
15. Eneyo (2020).
16. Fisher (2010, e.g., p. 100) has argued that there are problems when fearists, or
any other thinkers on fear, try so hard to make “fear” positive in valuation
without taking into account the full impacts of the pathology of fear that is the
underbelly of virtually all thinking/theorizing about fear in the first place. For
other arguments against fear-positivism see Fisher and Subba (2016), pp. 47, 95.
17. Fisher (2020d); see also the gender (feminist) critique from the self-ascribed “fear
expert” VanderWeil (2020).
18. Fisher has been promoting this feminist-epistemological critique since 1995
and it is completely avoided by all the men writing about history of emotion/
fear, philosophy of emotion/fear and Fearism. There are no women fearists
(other than a rare few, who are more students) leading fearism in the movement
today. Neither Subba nor Gillian have made this an overt concern. Fisher
promotes feminist scholars (and/or more feminine) and women thinking about
emotion (e.g., like Megan Boler) and thinking about fear (e.g., the late Bonaro
Overstreet, the late Dorothy Rowe, and Elisebeth VanderWeil, Pema Chödrön).
Closely linked to Fisher critique in this regard is that Indigenous-based scholars,
specializing in fear, are also not being studied by fearists (other than Fisher)—for
e.g., Four Arrows (aka Don T. Jacobs).
19. Kanel (2015, p. 137.
20. Subba (2021), p. 426.
21. Excerpted from Olson (2022).
22. Ngan (2022).
23. Sunbeam (20220.
24. Johansen (2021).

25. Subba told me recently he does not remember this, and I cannot find it again.
But I remember it well some four or so years ago.
26. The terrorist researcher was Colarik (2006, p. xiv) in Fisher (2016b), pp. 5, 18.
27. The rare exception is Eneyo (2018); a self-declared “fearist,” but his critical
overview of philosophy of Fearism remains relatively minimal. His other fearist
books Eneyo (2019, 2021) are also important contributions to philosophy of
Fearism generally.

Fearist’s Quotes
Divergent outlook makes one to be able to see the other

half of the truth for a complete ‘big picture.’
-B. Maria Kumar [1]
I n order to get a better feel for the thought and writing

of fearists mentioned in this Primer, this section provides some
randomly selected quotes, with their reference of source. Most come
from within the Fearism Movement, a few not. Some writers are not
using their first language and thus their English may be a little awkward;
but that is the reality of an international movement; and, so I have not
edited anything.
It is not my intention to extend fear. I didn’t say live in

fear. We are living in fear. I said live with the unveiling
of the cover of fear. For those who are running breathless
in fear, I told them to run with fearless breath. You can
see businessmen, employees, in the name of progress
and success, they are breathless in running.
-Subba [2]
Life is the chief value and it should be protected against

all odd without any FEAR of favour. Our Fears of
going into extinction should motivate us to understand
the importance of existential space and vacuum. As a
species that OUGHT to take care of the UNIVERSE,
we need to do that without bias, standing tall in defense
of the Mother Earth. -Adhikari, Kalu and Subba [3]
Fear, in summary, has no place in the eternal and is

only made possible by the potential for the privation
of the eternal in manifestation—as such, fear ought to
D71E
be conceptualized as originally coming before rather
than as a result of domination (the two of course form
a dialectical relationship from there.)....I love that fear
is at the base of the foundation of it, with cosmological
importance to security and thus to law, social and moral
order, and thus enforcement of law and criminology as
a discipline. You know, I have long been working on
the Love vs. Fear problem a long time, and you’ve given
a new route of inquiry into that in relationship to the
construct of time and its role in human civilizations.
“Fear of the Eternal” is a Time Problem.
-Fisher and Barnesmoore [4]
Resting in terror may seem contradictory, but it is

what we normally do as we think in roughly selfish...
ways about our daily fears....Forgive me for reminding
you once again, Dear Reader, but we human beings
sometimes receive great joy out of killing....Joy here is
delight in overcoming death because joy comes when
the enemy is dead and we are still alive, as our current
bombing in Afghanistan is now demonstrating daily (as
I write this). -Gillian [5]
Our leaders, across all domains of society (including

parents and caregivers), from this perspective, ought to
be “fearless” or at least they have committed themselves
to the path of fearlessness. Thus, they serve society by
aiming with a vision of a Fearless Age.
-Fisher and Subba [6]
Significant changes in the indigenous people can

be noticed, which is good. We are making our way
towards change day by day. We have begun to recognize
ourselves. We also have begun to read and write the
language, script, religion, culture, rituals and history. It

is a good sign. The person who is unable to recognize
himself can recognize no one. We should keep that in
mind. -Senior Tuttu in Subba [7]
Another charity fearfully instructs us, “Imagine for a

moment what it must be like to be trapped in one of
the world’s most brutally war-torn regions...scarred by
the devastating consequences of ethnic hatred, famine,
or civil war....Charities, of course, are not the only
organizations using fear to instruct and motivate us into
doing something. Every organization does this. Since
fear is what life is all about, fear is used everywhere to
inform our thinking and motivate our behavior.
-Gillian [8]
Capitalism also brought its own fears in the guise of

celebrated competition and “exchange” economics
over the traditional “gifting” economies of earlier
societies Any economic scenario based on a competitive
climate is usually tinged with anxiety and fear....It was
George Harrison of “The Beatles” who wrote a bitter
song named “Taxman” way back in 1966 about how
much tax money their group was paying to the British
government then. Fear of taxes ultimately drove the
rock band to leave their country...in protest, although
not permanently.
-Kumar and Fisher [9]
Something is wrong in the field of fear management. Is

there such a professional field? Actually, there isn’t. With
fear being recognized as a very serious human problem
by so many people and reputable authors, it has amazed
me for some 20 years how there still is not a textbook
(in English language, anyway) on Fear Management as
a discipline....If one searches a major data base on books

published in the world...on “conflict management”
there are today over 17,000 records (mostly books), and
many of those are often adopted as textbooks (K-12 and
post-secondary) for courses or programs on Conflict
Resolution, Mediation, and Conflict Management, or
Peace Studies and War Studies. In sharp contrast, on
that same data base, only 11 books are found for “Fear
Management” and none of them are even close to being
comprehensive textbooks.... [italics added for emphasis]
-Fisher [10]
What we’ve been taught about fear is wrong.

-VanderWeil [11]
In terms of a Practical Recommendation: Imagine

yourself, including those near around you who mean a
lot to your life, completely bathed in timelessness. Then,
once you take that reality of possibility in, and keep
imagining it for some minutes in contemplation, then
begin to see if there is any humor that wants to emerge.
Just how funny is this state of timelessness.
-Fisher and Kumar [12]
I would like to appreciate...Desh Subba, who had opened

“the philosophy of fearism” and to hope that one day
this interesting subject will be thought as one of the
most important subjects in the college and university
of the world. -Dhaneswar Engti [13]
“Fear defeats more people than any other one thing in

the world.” (-Ralph Waldo Emerson). We are living in a
society [Nigeria] where the human person is discouraged
day in day out....fear as a social vice is very malodorous.
It cuts all walks of life and strata of society.
-Kalu [14]

“Our greatest fear is that we don’t actually know what
fear is,” writes Fisher and Subba. Now that’s provocative
and unexpected. This rare book deeply and critically
examines the role of fear in life systems, it originates
ideas for new sub-disciplines like feariatry, fearanalysis,
and fearology. Every school of clinical psychology,
counseling, social work and coaching should include a
course, if not whole term, on fearism and fearlessness
with Fisher and Subba as course creators and teacher
trainers. I am more than impressed by their dedicated
and important vision.
-Janet Sheppard [15]
The day the ban begins; starts the restless and an

attempt to find salvation from the ban. Several types
of restrictions were for working people....People worked
together to develop the nation and to free the nation
from claw and jaw of fierce lions. They sought free life,
independence, and peacefulness. That is why they made
a revolution of resistance and expansion. If they were
not released, fear will strangle them, as with the ban
being like a rope around the neck. -Subba [16]
In this school (fearism), those who perceive fear as

something that mostly brings about positive development
always argue that actions are influenced by the fear of
the consequences if we fail to do....The members who
hold this belief have consistently made recommending
progress in defending their stance. While those who see
fear as something much of being negative blamed the
inability of man to achieve his potentials to fear of taking
risk. I am a fearist who focuses on the interactions of
both the positive and the negative fears and try to work
out a template on how positive fear can be adopted to
overcome the negative fear through love and courage.

It can be argued that almost all the philosophers
of fear and fearists are dualists....I choose not to be
addressed as a dualist....I see myself as a unificationist
or a complementarist. -Eneyo [17]
Happiness depends upon our ability to forge meaningful

relationships with others, but doing so is frightening,
which is as it should be—positively frightening.
Creating a meaningful and happy life for ourselves,
therefore, means learning how to be properly afraid in
our terrifying universe, for there is no happiness without
fear since there is no life without fear.
-Gillian [18]
We dedicate this book as a wake-up call for those whose

lives have been paralyzed in the name of lower caste fate
and untouchable status for thousands of years. Wake
up! All in India and beyond now can arise to a new fate
with a new dawning of the 21st century.
-Kumar, Fisher and Subba [19]
As a closing choice of favorite quote from this Primer, I think this

is a good pointer that gets to the heart of understanding why Fearism
exists and persists today:
Some believe we know enough about fear already, we

just need to apply it and things will improve. That may
be true but I think the problems we face today and
our understanding of fear are not yet at the place of a
comfortable agreement that we know enough about
them.
The real poignant question in this quote now comes to me upon

reflection: Who is the “We” who cares enough to not settle for the
status quo knowledge and understanding about fear and the human

relationship with it? Who resists the comfortable agreement? the
conformity? the easier way to by-pass the Fear Problem investigations?
Ideally, all human beings ought to reflect on these questions, but for
many reasons they typically do not at this point in history. The quest of
Fearism, in all its diversity of expressions, philosophies, and life-styles,
is at least one unifying category of naming to remind us that Fear is
something worth caring for. And although as I have declared there
are, arguably, some universal principles in the philosophy of Fearism
Movement that can guide the inquiry into fear(ism) territories, there are
still lots of things not agreed upon amongst the fearists. Even the quotes
above, when studied more closely will show there are some differing
points of view, concerns, tensions, even conflicts in this new school of
philosophy. There is bound to be this spectrum of perspectives because
of our different backgrounds and we live all across the world.
I close with a quick and simple quote that someone posted on the
Internet recently on their blogsite. It was written in big letters on a
colored box like a poster. It was heartening to see a new person taking
up the topic of Fearism and making it special enough to post amongst
their viewers and to try to start up a discussion, of which there was only
a few short comments. The quote reminded me of something I have seen
before and it is probably a classic example of how people first come to
interpret Subba’s philosophy of Fearism after a brief introduction to it
and then wishing to share it with others:
Fearism is new philosophy which defines fear as integral

part of our life and how it co-exists together from birth
to death. It should not be treated as enemy but as friend
that alert us for possible accidents or wrongdoings and
should be taken positively. [20]
Indeed, this is very common, albeit, short-sighted, as to what this

new philosophy is about. Yes, making fear more positive and interesting
to see it as not enemy but friend to help us for survival and leading
a good life—no doubt, fear(ism) studies and teachings embrace this
but this is also a popular movement in re: to re-framing fear that

has long been in discourses by others, not just fearists. So, I thought
to respond to this persons blogpost with a quick following extension
to offer something more accurate and long-term in vision for what a
philosophy of Fearism brings to the world:
According to Subba (2014) fearism not merely defines

fear in that meaningful way—but it expands the
definition/meaning and imaginary of fear itself. He
provides 21 different meanings/definitions and theories
regarding fear and human relations—as well as with
Life. [21]
I leave readers with this message and close this Primer on that basic
priming of the mind and heart; a slight corrective. For the last thing
Fearism needs to be thought of is that it is only for personal growth
and wellness. Life has provided to deliver us humans a philosophy of
Fearism. Now, “We,” whomever decides, are the carriers to advance and
mature that ‘new baby’ in the crib. With nurturant ‘parenting’ it will
become the philosophy of Life, just what the 21st century has asked for.
I for one find that an exciting venture in these otherwise very dark and
troubling times of much destruction and decay.
Fearism guides
like a ‘Star’
and reminds us
of
who
We ‘really are.’

Endnotes
1. Kumar, in Kumar and Fisher (2022), p. 261.

2. In Sapkota (2018).
3. Adhikari, Kalu and Subba (2020), p. li.
4. Barnesmoore (before four dots), then Fisher; in Fisher and Barnesmoore (2018),
pp. 142-3.
5. Gillian (2002), pp. 34-5.
7. Novel character Senior Tuttu, in Subba (2015), p. 76.
8. Gillian (2005), pp. 120-1.
9. Kumar and Fisher (2022), p. 63.
10. Fisher (2010), p. xxvii.
11. VanderWeil (2020), p. 3.
12. Fisher and Kumar (2021), p. cvi.
13. Front matter in Subba (2014).
14. Kalu (2017), p. 67.
15. Front matter in Fisher and Subba (2016a).
16. Subba (2021), p. 343.
17. Eneyo (2018), p. 14.
18. Gillian (2002), p. 151.
19. Front matter in Kumar, Fisher and Subba (2019).
20. By Naeem Khan. https://khatirnama.blogspot.com/2022/03/fearism-is-new-
philosophy-which-defines.html
21. Ibid. Comments, July 4, 2022.

Brief Glossary
H erein is a brief set of basic definitions that are essential

to understanding the philosophy of Fearism and its growing
vocabulary. The more in depth glossaries that are useful can be found
in the back of many of the fearists’ books, but not all. The first standard
glossary is in Fisher and Subba (2016), and an updated compilation can
be found in Fisher (2019a). At this point in the field of fearism studies,
no one fixed set of terms has been universally accepted and often terms
will have definitions in different sources by different fearists that are
not identical. However, in general there is some stability in the way
these terms are defined and offered with the various meanings. One
simply has to hang around in the sphere of philosophy of Fearism to
really learn what terms mean and may possibly mean in relationship to
other terms—there is an ecological arrangement that seeps into one’s
psyche after years of studying the vocabulary and reading and writing
and teaching about fearism.
arational- (distinct from irrational) modes and methods, for

example, reverie, dreaming, imagining, ritual, magical and mythical
consciousness, deep creativity and intuition, trance, non-ordinary and
hypnotic states, meditation and contemplation, psychotropic-based
inquiry, ecological knowing and cross-species empathy; is essential in
multiple ways of knowing and multiple intelligences; it is not against
the rational ways of knowing (like reason, logic) but is complementary
to them
Fear- a generic all expansive way of expressing fear as something more

than individual psychology and as a greater all-pervasive force that
shapes Life, evolution, and the everyday dynamics of human behavior
D81E
Fear Problem- is a generic all expansive way to collect all the diverse
kinds of problems that exist regarding fear in the outside world as well
as the interior of the psyche/soul of humanity; many of its components
are not about feelings or emotions but are extended understandings of
fear, Fear, fear(ism) etc. and how they make the complicated version of
fear and problems of knowing fear a problem itself
fear(s)- typically understood as a feeling or emotion, as the basis of

defense mechanisms and survival intelligence systems; this is the
conception utilized by the dominating fields of biology and psychology
when it comes to knowledge about emotion(s)—that is, about “fear”
fear-based- refers to when someone or some design or event is motivated

by more than 50% by fear itself
fear itself- refers to more than just the identifiable fears and phobias
that are typically the focus of discussion and study; the fearist(s) focus
on this phenomena the most as they look to the roots below the surface
of things
fear-positivism- the tendency, and a social movement, dedicated to

making fear more positively attributed with value than in prior times
‘ fear’- is a way to signify that fear itself is being addressed as under

deconstruction and reconstruction so that no pre-fixed definition of fear
is given priority over other possibilities yet to be discovered
fear(ism)- is used for a more generic way of expressing there is more

than just fear being written about in the text (e.g., the Primer) but there
is an entire system/ecology of interrelationships going on which is the
more accurate way to holistically understand fear and fear management
feariatry- is a term derived from within the school of philosophy of

Fearism as a new way to conceive of the study of and treatment of
mental illness
D82E
Fearism- is all about fear; yet, that is only the surface meaning of
this fast spreading concept, social philosophy, and the international
intellectual movement behind it; the diverse meanings of fearism,
including populist notions that are mostly all negative (analogous to
fearmongering); in Fisher’s work “ fearism-t” (toxic form) is pathological,
but this is not the case for Subba’s version; there are also more academic
and professional meanings of which the most basic ideas of Fisher and/
or Subba are included or combined; originally, for Fisher fearism was an
oppression like terrorism, racism, sexism, classism—whereas, for Subba
fearism was like rationalism, existentialism, and thus the way to name
a philosophy with fear as its core concept of importance; see philosophy
of Fearism
fearist(s)- are those who adopt a fearist-lens and approach of making

fear itself central to the investigating of everything
fearology- is a term derived from the transdisciplinary approach to the

study of fear; it focuses on the study of the relationship of fear and life;
it specializes in the study of the kinds of knowledges available on fear
(and its management) and categorizes and critiques that knowledge
fearontological- this is the fearist’s ontology in action; the proposition

is one of applying a fearist lens to all ontological issues and thus placing
fear right alongside with the nature of being
philosophy of fear- is an approach to the study of fear via the discipline

of philosophy; anyone who pursues this type of inquiry may develop
their own philosophies of fear, while collectively such philosophies may
make up a more universal philosophy of fear
philosophy of Fearism- coined by Desh Subba, is one particular

approach of a philosophy of fear, but it is unique because of the fearist-
lens or perspective brought to the study—which, in itself changes the
very nature of philosophy, as well as fear, as well as being human
D83E
transdisciplinary- is like inter-disciplinary methodology, whereby one
does not just draw from one discipline but many in order to understand
a phenomenon; “trans” means beyond all disciplines and takes the
methodology of inquiry into the creative and unknown where all
questions and approaches can be thought of as potentially useful
D84E
Basic References
for the Primer and a Philosophy of Fearism
Adhikari, B. S., Kalu, O. A and Subba, D. (2020). Eco Fearism: Prospects

and burning issues. Xlibris.
Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. The Free Press.
Bogun, K. (2016). The discourses of fear and horror in the philosophy

of late XX-early XXI. European Philosophical and Historical
Discourse, 2(1), 91-6.
Brissett, W. N. (2003). Bibliographical essay on fear. The Hedgehog

Review: Critical Reflections on Contemporary Culture, 5(3), 115-23.
Cohl, H. A. (1997). Are we scaring ourselves to death?: How pessimism,

paranoia, and a misguided media are leading us toward disaster.
St. Martin’s Griffin.
De Becker, G. (1997). The gift of fear: Survival signals that protect us

from violence. Dell.
Dozier, R. W. Jr. (1998). Fear itself: The origin and nature of the powerful
emotion that shapes Our lives and world. St. Martin’s Press.
Eneyo, M. B. (2021). The transhuman world and its fears: A fearological

guide for the developing countries. Xlibris.
Eneyo, M. B. (2020). A rejoinder to R. Michael Fisher’s critique: “The

Love and Fear Problem: A Response to Michael Bassey Eneyo.”
International Journal of Fear Studies, 2(1), 49-59.
D85E
Eneyo, M. B. (2019). Philosophy of unity: Love as an ultimate unifier.
Xlibris.
Eneyo, M. B. (2018). Philosophy of fear: A move to overcoming negative

fear. Xlibris.
Fisher, R. M. (in press). The Fear Problematique: Role of philosophy of

education in speaking truths to powers in a culture of fear. IAP.
Fisher, R. M. (2022a). Confession of a fear critic: Treatments of fear.

https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/confession-from-
a-fear-critic-treatments-of-fear
Fisher, R. M. (2022b). How we care for fear: Understanding fearism.

International Market and Competitive Intelligence Magazine, 11
(March/April), 23-27.
Fisher, R. M. (2020a). Fear is no longer just a factor: Fearism as a new

force-field vector in social science research. Technical Paper No.
95. In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.
Fisher, R. M. (2020b). Fearism with R. Michael Fisher. Interviewed by

James Ellis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPB9oVZnI4A
Fisher, R. M. (2020c). Samuel N. Gillian’s Beckerian educational

philosophy of fear/terror. Technical Paper No. 102. In Search
of Fearlessness Research Institute.
Fisher, R. M. (2020d). Fisher’s response to Michael Eneyo’s rejoinder.

International Journal of Fear Studies, 2(1), 60-3.
Fisher, R. M. (2019a). New fear vocabulary. International Journal of Fear

Studies, 1(2), 10-14.
D86E
Fisher, R. M. (2019b). “Fearism” coined in 1990: New discovery.
https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/fearism-coined-in-
1990-new-discovery
Fisher, R. M. (2019c). Fisher receives Tilmati Fearism Award. https://

www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4WLUWLbm68
Fisher, R. M. (2019d). The Love and Fear Problem: A response to

Michael Bassey Eneyo. International Journal of Fear Studies,
1(2), 75-112.
Fisher, R. M. (2018a). A few concluding thoughts. In Kalu, O. A.,

Sadriwala, M., Kumar, B. M., and Subba, D., A dialogue on
terrorism: The fearist perspective. http://globalpostinfo.us/
en/2018/03/25/a-dialogue-on-terrorism-the-fearist-perspective/
Fisher, R. M. (2018b). Fisher’s engagements with fearism: An annotated

bibliography. Technical Paper No. 78. In Search of Fearlessness
Research Institute.
Fisher, R. M. (2017a). “Fearism”: A critical analysis of uses and discourses

in global migration studies. Technical Paper No. 64. In Search
of Fearlessness Research Institute.
Fisher, R. M. (2017b). Michael R. Fisher [sic] on the fearologist. In O. A.

Kalu, The first stage of the fearologist (pp. 33-7). Self-published.
Fisher, R. M. (2016a). Feariatry: A first conceptual mapping.

https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/feariatry-a-first-
conceptual-mapping
Fisher, R. M. (2016b). In defense of fearism: The case of Noam

Chomsky. Technical Paper No. 58. In Search of Fearlessness
Research Institute.
D87E
Fisher, R. M. (2014). Towards a theory of fearism. Technical Paper No.
Fisher, R. M. (2013). The problem of defining the concept of “fear-

based.” Technical Paper No. 48. 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.
University Press of America/Rowman and Littlefield.
Fisher, R. M. (2006). Invoking ‘Fear’ Studies. Journal of Curriculum

Theorizing, 22(4), 39-71.
Fisher, R. M. (1995). An introduction to defining ‘fear’: A spectrum

approach. Technical Paper No. 1. In Search of Fearlessness
Research Institute.
Fisher, R. M., and Barnesmoore, L. (2018). Appendix 3: Hierarchical

security: Problem of fear of the eternal. In R. M. Fisher, D.
Subba and B. M. Kumar, Fear, law and criminology: Critical
issues in applying the philosophy of fearism (pp. 125-48). Xlibris.
Fisher, R. M., and Kumar, B. M. (2021). Resistances to fearlessness: A

philosophy of fearism approach. Xlibris.
Fisher, R. M., and Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first E.-W.

dialogue. Xlibris.
Fisher, R. M., and Subba, D. (2016b). Terrorism: A guide to fearful

times based on a philosophy of fearism. Technical Paper No.
Fisher, R. M., Subba, D. and Kumar, B. M. (2018). Fear, law and

criminology: Critical issues in applying the philosophy of fearism.
Xlibris.
D88E
Four Arrows (aka Jacobs, D. T.). (2016a). Point of departure: Returning
to a more authentic worldview for education and survival.
Information Age Publishing.
Four Arrows (aka Jacobs, D. T.). (2016b). West: Foreword. In R. M.

Fisher and D. Subba, Philosophy of fearism: A first E.-W. dialogue
(pp. xiii-xv). Xlibris.
Furedi, F. (1997). Culture of fear: Risk, and the morality of low expectation.
Cassell.
Gillian, S. N. (2005). Terrified by education: Teaching children how to

fear learning. Phemore Press.
Gillian, S. N. (2002). The beauty of fear: How to positively enjoy being

afraid. Phemore Press.
Glassner, B. (1999). The culture of fear: Why Americans are afraid of the
wrong things. Basic Books.
Jacobs, D. T. (1998). Primal awareness: A true story of survival,

transformation, and awakening with the Rarámuri shamans of
Mexico. Inner Traditions.
Johansen, K. (2021). Fearism. https://www.academia.edu/82040476/

Fearism?f bclid=IwAR1pQt16eCOy IU8nmlBqpVeLqxc
KY3W9n57tVU IAExNC9wKDK7RN8Xjo
Kalu, O. A. (2017). The first stage of the fearologist. Self-published.
Kanel, C. N. (2015). A Nepali scholar’s international gift:‘Philosophy of

Fearism.’ Participation, 16 (August), 135-7.
Krishnamurti, J. (1995). On fear. HarperCollins.
D89E
Kumar, B. M., and Fisher, R. M. (2022). Hidden dimensions of human
existence: A fear-fearlessness perspective. Indra Publishing House.
Kumar, B. M., Fisher, R. M. and Subba, D. (2019). India, a nation of

fear and prejudice. Xlibris.
Ngan, D. (2022). Trans Philosophism, a review. Phi Magazine, May 6.
Olson, K. (2022). Comment on Trans Philosophism philosophy book.

https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/comment-on-
trans-philosophism-philosophy-book
Overstreet, B. W. (1951/71). Understanding fear in ourselves and others.

Harper and Row.
Plamper, J., and Lazier, B. (2010). Introduction: The phobic regime of

modernity. In J. Plamper and B. Lazier (Eds.), Special Forum:
Fear Beyond the Disciplines. Representations, 110, 58-65.
Rai, N. (2018). “Philosophy of Fearism” is a unique philosophy. Naya Patrika,

Daily. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/philosophy-fearism-
unique-desh-subba/
Sapkota, D. (2018). “Philosophy of Fearism” offers treatment

for fear patients: An interview with Desh Subba. https://
fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/philosophy-of-fearism-
offerstreatment-for-fear-patients
Shirlow, P., and Pain, R. (2003). The geographies and politics of fear.
Capital and Class, 60, 15-26.
Simon, L. (1998). Genuine reality: A life of William James. Harcourt

Brace and Co.
D90E
Subba, D. (2021). Trans philosophism: Trans philosophism doctrine on
Marxism, postmodernism, existentialism, criticism, sociology,
ecology, politics, science and language. Xlibris.
Subba, D. (2019). Existence of fear precedes essence. https://

fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/existence-of-fear-
precedes-essence-desh-subba
Subba, D. (2015). The tribesman’s journey to fearless: A novel based on

Fearism. Xlibris.
Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of Fearism: Life is conducted, directed and

controlled by the fear. Xlibris.
Sunbeam, K. C. (2022). Philosophy of Fear-ism: Book review. https://

kcsunbeam.wordpress.com/2022/05/27/philosophy-of-
fearism-book-review/
Tuan, Y-F. (1979). Landscapes of fear. University of Minnesota Press.
VanderWeil, E. (2020). Apolcalyptic best practices: A unique approach to

fear and change. Self-published.
White, J. K. (1997). Still seeing red: How the Cold War shapes the new
American politics. Westview Press.
Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology and spirituality: The spirit of evolution

[vol. 1]. Shambhala.
D91E
Index
A beauty: 30, 33, 36, 89; see also aesthetics

Becker, E., 32-3, 47, 85
academic: 2, 10, 15, 21, 32, 39, 40, 48, Beckerian: 33, 44, 86
53, 59, 68, 83; see also populist Being: 34, 35, 83; see also ontology,
addicted: 17; to fear, 18 reality
Adhikari, B. S., 46, 71, 79, 85 Bhattari, G. R., 46
aesthetics: 32, 41; see also art(s), beauty Bible: 33, 60, 64, 69; see also
affect(ive): 41, 65; see also emotion(al) Christian(ity)
(s), feeling Bickel, B., xiii
Africa(n): 20, 21, 31, 46, 51 biology: 10, 14, 31, 66; of fear, 82
African-American: 20, 29, 33, 38, 47, 59, biopsychological fear: 5; see also
62; see also American reductionism
afraid: 43, 53; Americans, 89; enjoy Black. see Africa, African-American
being, 89; properly, 76; see also Bogun, K., 15, 85
fear(s), scaring Boler, M., 69
Age of Anxiety: 9; see also anxiety borderlands: 59; see also margins
Age of Terror: 9 brave(ry): 41; see also courage,
Amazing Grace: 33, 47 fearlessness
America(n): 9, 19, 29, 32, 33, 38, 59, 89, Brissett, W. N., 15, 85
91; see also North America(n)
ancient: 14, 36, 41; see also Greek, C
Indigenous
anthropological: 31, 42 Camus, A., 14
anxiety: 7, 42, 73; vs. fear, 7; see also Canada: 5, 31, 51; see also North
Age of Anxiety, existence, America(n)
existential(ism), fear(s) capitalism: 73; late- 40
apocalyptic: 91 casteism: 76; see also classism, oppression
arationalism: 15, 81; see also art(s), Chambers, D., 47
dream(ing), hypnotic, magic(al), change: 3, 4, 37, 42, 72; excess fear and,
spiritual, trance x; fear and, 5, 28, 83; fearism and,
art(ist)(s): 14, 30, 32, 59; see also 19, 20, 49; philosophy and, 83;
aesthetics, literary, poetry see also social, transform(ation)
Asian (East): 20, 21, 31 chaos: 42
Chödrön, P., 69
B Christian(ity): 33, 60, 62; see also Bible,
religion(s)
Barnesmoore, L., 72, 79, 88 civilization: 72
D93E
classism: 83; see also casteism, poor 87, 88; see also critical philosophy
cognitive: 17, 42, 47; -behavioral, 41, 48 (theory), criticism
Cohl, H. A., 48, 85 criticism: 10, 20, 24, 53, 58-68, 91; good,
Chomsky, N., 87 11, 58; see also critics, debate(s),
Cold War: 20, 91; see also war(s) literary
collective: ix, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18, 28; fear critics: 11, 24, 45, 50, 52, 58-68, 69; fear,
and, 48; fearstory, 1; see also social xiii; see also critical philosophy;
colonialism: 30; see also Westernization Fearism
Communism: 30 cult: 51
compassion: 12, 58; see also empathy, culture. see culture of fear(s), ethnic
love, peace hatred, social, political
complementarist: 76: see also integrative, Cultural realm: 6; see also Natural
integral, unificationist realm, Spiritual realm
complexity (theory): 3, 9; see also culture of fear: 9, 32, 48, 86, 89; see also
holistic-integral, systems (theory) fear(s), TMT
conflict(s): 20, 24, 49, 57, 60, 62, 77; cycle of fear: 48; see fear(s), pathology
battles of fear, 20; management,
74; see also criticism, debate(s), D
oppression, political, violence, De Becker, G., 42, 47, 85
war(s) death: 7, 12, 44, 72, 77; denial of, 85;
conflictwork: 32; see also conflict(s) see also fear(s), mortality, Terror
consciousness: 43; alternative, 41; mind, Management Theory
4; movements, 49; new, x; W., debate(s): 26, 60, 61; see also conflict(s)
20; see also magical, meditation, deception: 45; see also defense
mythic(al) mechanism(s), lie(s), repression
conservative: 61: see also Right deconstruct(ion): 4, 5, 82; see also
cosmological: 72; see also spiritual(ity), reconstruct(ion)
theological, worldview(s) Defense Intelligence System(s): xiii, 82
courage: xiii, 6, 75; see also brave(ry), defense mechanisms: 12, 13, 82; see also
love deception, Defense Intelligence
Creation: xiii, 35 Systems, denial, dissociation,
crime (fear of): 19 repress(ion), Terror Management
criminology: 72, 88; see also crime, law, Theory
security denial: 55, 85; see also dissociation
critical philosophy (theory): 4, 6, 20, development: 7, 22, 39, 60; major eras,
59; fearism as, 6; see also critics, 14; see also evolution, history
literacy (critical), standpoint dialogue(s): 9, 10, 18, 21, 87; East-West,
theory 1, 23, 57, 88, 89
critical thinking (reflection): ix, xiii, 1, 2, dictatorship: 30; see also political, Right
13, 24, 30, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, dictionary analysis: 55, 67; see also
45, 53, 60, 63, 65, 69, 70, 75, 85, word(s)
D94E
disciplinarity: 39, 62 more than, 54-5; history of, 9, 69;
discourse(s): 5, 10, 14, 18, 53, 57, 61, philosophy of, 65-6, 69; see also
78; Fearism, 44; fearism, 87; affect(ive)
fearist, 19; hegemony, 48; of fear empathy: 15, 81; see also affect(ive),
and horror, 85; see also ideology, compassion, peace
political empirical: 8, 12, 13, 54; see also
dissociation: 45, 55: see also defense rational(ism), scientific
mechanisms, denial, mis- enemy: 36, 72; fear as beast, 57; fear as
education, pathology, repress(ion) not, 77; see also conflict(s), death,
Dozier, R. W. Jr., 41, 47, 85 hatred, political, war(s)
dream(ing): 15, 28, 81; see also arational, Eneyo, M. B., 46, 62-3, 69, 70, 75-6,
imagining, intuition 79, 85-6, 87
drives. see motivation(s) Engti, D., 74
dual(ism): 76; see also nondual(ism) Enlightenment: 30, 41; see also political,
dualist: 76 rational(ism), West(ern)
Epictetus, 41
E epistemology: 13; see also knowing
East(ern). see Asia(n), Hong Kong, essence: fear precedes, 46, 64, 91; see also
Nepal(i), Russia(n) ontology
East-West. see Fearism, Middle-East, ethic(s): 12, 13, 51, 54, evolutionary,
philosophers 65; fearists, 52; without fear or
eco-fearism. see fearism favor; see also evolution, law(s),
ecological: 42, 81; knowing, 15; see also moral(ity)
political ethnic hatred: 73; see also political
ecology: 31, 82, 91; see also holistic- evolution: ix, 10, 13, 31, 42, 45, 61, 81,
integral, systems 91; co-, 19; ethics, 65; fear-as-
economic(s): gift(ing) vs. exchange, 73; system, 36; ninth stage (Subba),
see also capitalism, Communism, 9; see also development, history,
Marxism, political systems (theory)
education: xi, 11, 20, 28, 30, 31, 38, 89; existence: 45, 67, 68, 90; fear in, 42; of fear,
fear, 41; fear and, 47; mis-, 45; No 64; of fear precedes essence, 46, 63,
Child Left Behind, 34; philosophy 64, 91; terror in, 16, 45; see also
of, 32, 86; popular, 21; terrified essence, existential(ism), terror(ism)
by, 47, 89; see also Fear Education, existential(ism): 8, 65, 91; fear vs.
Fear Management, political anxiety, 7; Fearism and, 13,
ego(ism): 12, 35, 36, 52; as fearism, 17, 83; philosophy of fearism and,
18; see also self 7; see also existence, fearism,
Ellis, J., 35, 86 humanistic, Stoic(ism)
Emerson, R. W., 74
F
emotion(al)(s): 4, 5, 8, 19, 26, 37, 42,
60, 63, 66, 82; fear as, 85; fear as ‘Fear’ Project(ion): 27
D95E
‘fear’: 3, 9, 18, 24, 27, 50, 82, 88; 5, 60, 82, 88; definitions (21
culturally-constructed, 18; different), 78; denial and, 85;
defined, 5, 36; not what it used discourses of, 85; economics and,
to be, 5 73; education and, 33; emotion,
Fear: xiii, 4, 6, 9, 14, 27, 37, 38, 42, 45, 5, 8, 66; emotion no longer, 19;
46, 50, 57, 58, 62, 71, 72, 73, essence and, 46, 64, 91; ever
74, 77, 81; capitalized, 35, 36; present, 67; excess, 38; existence
connoisseurs of, 15; definitions of, 91; fear-plus, 19; factor, 13,
(21), 41; new scholarship, 9, 15; 30, 43, 86; factor (beyond),
temple of, 36 86; feeling (taught), 64; feeling
Fear Age (Extreme): 9 (troubled), 36; freedom from,
Fear Education: ix, 13, 26, 41, 43, 51, 9, 44; gift of, 85; God is, 64;
88; see also Fear Management happiness and, human condition,
Fear and Education: 33, 47 32, 33; -human relation, ix, 78;
Fear and mis-education: 55 imaginary, 55; individualist
Fear Management: ix, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, psychology, 5; inside/outside, 82;
15, 26, 28, 32, 36, 43, 51, 74, 83, ism and, 8; itself, 36; knowing
88; see also Fear Education, Fear and, 5, 38, 82; landscapes of, 91;
Management Systems (theory) law (crime) and, 88; learning,
Fear Management Systems (theory): 36, 89; love and, 62, 72, 85, 87;
60; see also systems (theory) manage(d), 36, 60; management/
Fear Problem(atique): x, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, education, 60, 88; metaphysics of,
32, 36, 45, 77, 86, 87; defined, 82 67; mind-generated,43; mythical,
Fear Studies: x, 5, 63; International 36; nature and role, 35; negative,
Journal of, 5, 32, 62, 85, 86, 87 29; negative feeling, 5; no, 1;
Fear Vocabulary (new): 4; see also nothing, 67; object/subject, 58;
literacy (critical) obsessed with, 51; of crime, 19;
fear(s): vii; -as-system, 36; actualization of eternal, 88; personified (deity),
of, 19; addicted to, 18; advice, 36; phenomenon, 37; philosophy
41; -based (defined), 83; battles of, and, 26; philosophers on, 32; plus
20; beauty of, 33; biology of, 82; (‘), 5; positive, 75; power, 5, 17,
biopsychological, 5; capitalized, 40; primitive, 41; problem, 36;
36; care for, 11-14, 77, 86; change prejudice and, 90; psychology
and, 91; chaos, 42; children’s of (dominating), 5, 82; self and,
book on, 33, 41; climate of, 73; 58; survival and, 39, 82; time
competition and, 73; concept, problem and, 72; toxic, 18, 1, 3,
58; contained, 36; critic, xiii, 86; 6, 17, 26, 29, 48; vector, 13, 86;
danger, 5; death, 7, 12, 44, 72, wisdom about, 60; without, 2,
77; deconstruction of, 83; defense, 64, 69, 71, 76; working for us, 9;
82; Defense Intelligence, xiii; see also anxiety, biopsychological,
defining history, 37; definition(s), culture of fear, emotion(al)
D96E
(s), ‘fear,’ fear-negative, fear- fearanalysis: x, 28, 45, 75; see also
positivism, chaos, culture of fear, psychoanalysis
Fear Problem(atique), fearism, feariatry: x, 28, 46, 75, 87; defined, 82;
fearstory, fearwork, horror, see also feariatrist, psychiatry,
landscapes of fear, negative-fear, therapeutic
panic, pathological, pathology, feariatrist: 46; see also feariatry
phobia(s), positive-fear, terror(ism) Fearism: 16-25; awkward sounding, 8;
fear itself: ix, 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 55, 78; capitalized, x; critical philosophy,
defined, 82; fear of, 9, 54; see also 6; critics of, 58-68; cult, 51;
fear(s) defined, 83; East-West dialogue,
fear problem. see fear(s), Fear 1, 17; fathers of, 51, 69 ; Fisherian,
Problem(atique) 17-20; gift, 89; philosophy of
fear system: 41; fear-as-system, 36; fear- (coined), ix; school of, x; Study
power system, 40 Centres, 21; Subbaian, 29-30;
fear(ism): 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18, Subbain-Fisherian, 22-5; Three
21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 32, 44, 45, Pillars Model, 46; see also
49, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 77; Africa(n), Asia(n), East-West,
defined, 82 fearanalysis, feariatry, fearology,
fear(ism) phenomenon, x, 18, 19, 37, India(n), literary, Nepal(i),
43, 44, philosophy of Fearism, populist
fear-based: 6, 12, 18, 19, 55; definition fearism: complicates fear, 7-10; defined,
problem, 17, 82, 88; see also culture 2; chronic condition, 18; eco-,
of fear, ‘fear,’ fear-conditioned, 29, 85; education and, 20, 21;
fear-negative, fearism-t egoism is, 17-8; fear-based,
fear-condition(ed). see fear-based, fear- 17; fear-negativist (Fisher), 17,
negative, human condition, 20; fear-plusing and, 5; fearist
hypnotic, lie(s), negatively and, 3; fearwork and, 19;
terrified (too) Fisher’s original, 2, 17-8; global
fear-fearlessness perspective, 90 migration studies and, 16, 87;
fear-negative: x, 3, 5, 9, 29, 50, 55, 75, history, 17-20; ideology, 16, 19,
86; see also fear-based, fear- 53; manufactured, 19; meanings
conditioned, pathology, phobia(s) (diverse), 2; mind and, 43;
fear-plus(ing): 3-6, 19; see also fearism pathological, 17; political (Fisher),
fear-positive: x, 9, 26, 55, 69, 75, 76, 77, 18, 20; power and, 69; practical, 8;
82; gifts of fear, ix; see also fear(s), purpose, 2; reductional criticism,
philosophy of Fearism, positive 68; Subba’s original, 2, 20-1;
fear terrorism and, x, 18; therapeutic
fear-positivism: 63, 69; defined, 82 implication, 20; toxic fear-based
fear-power: 5, 40; fear is power, 17; see (habit), 17; see also fear-negative,
also fearmongering, political fear-plusing, fear(ism), fearist(s),
D97E
literary, philosophy, populist, fearontological: 64; defined, 83; see also
Subbaian-Fisherian fearism ontology
fearism theory, 2, 14, 49-70 fearstory: xi, 1, 19, 21, 37, 60-1; see also
fearism-t (toxic form): 16, 22, 45, history
50; defined, 83; see also fear- fearwork: xiii, 1, 4, 6, 14, 19, 22, 26,
negative, Fisherian fearism, 29, 32, 37, 40, 45, 52, 56, 57, 62,
ideology, negative, oppression, 63; see also Fear Management,
pathological, terrorism, toxic political
fearist(s): ix, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 25, 51, feeling: 5, 19, 35, 36, 41, 64, 82; see also
52-3, 71-80, 87; critics, 7; defined, affect(ive), emotion(al)(s), essence
19, 83; discourses, 19; existential feminist: epistemology (critique), 69;
position, 42; Fearlessness paradigm, 41, 63; perspective, 41;
Movement and, 27; founding, 27, see also standpoint theory
40; lens, 12, 83; methods of, 15; fiction: 16, 30, 41; see also literary
political, 5; postmodern, 5, 13; first principle(s): 57, 68; see also
practitioner, 3; progressives, 38; philosophy
radical perspective, 13; terrorism Fisher, R. M., 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16-
and, 25; transdisciplinary, 13, 47; 19, 22-3, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31-2,
triad (core), 42, 43, 45; see also 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45-6, 47,
fearanalyst, feariatrist, fearologist 49, 50, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61,
fearless(ly) 62-3, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73-4, 75, 76,
Fearlessness Paradigm, 45, 62 79, 81, 83, 85, 86-8, 90
Fearlessness Project (Movement): 14, 27, Fisher-Gillian: 58-9
32; see also Fearlessness Paradigm Fisher-Subbaian: 22-5
Fearlessness Research Institute (In Fisherian: 17, 20, 54
Search of): 32, 86, 87, 88; see also Fisherian Fearism: 2, 16, 17-19
fearlessness Four Arrows: 14, 15, 35-6, 46, 69, 89;
fearlessness: xiii, 59, 75; critique of, 69; see also Indigenous, Jacobs, D. T.
fear and, 8, 14, 32, 45, 90; Fisher Four Freedoms: 9; see also universal
and, 27; freedom and, 39; gift freedom: 39, 64, 75; from fear, 9, 44; see
of, xiii; path of, 72; Subba and also Enlightenment, liberation,
22; spirit of, 45; teachings, 88; political
uncanny (location), 45; see also Freud, S., 28
Fearlessness Paradigm Furedi, F., 15, 89
fearmongering: 10, 19, 53, 83; see also future(s): ix, xiii, 2, 10, 13, 21, 23, 26,
fear-based, fearism, fearism-t 28, 45, 49, 53; studies, 37
fearological: 85; see also fearology
fearologist: 5, 10, 11, 28, 37, 87, 89; see G
also fearist geographical: 42; see also landscapes of fear
fearology: x, 10, 28, 51, 67, 75; gender: 61 history shaped by, 61; see also
defined, 85 sexism
D98E
Germany. see Berlin Wall human potential: 26, 30, 32, 42, 51
gift(ing): ix, xiii, 34, 85, 89; economies, 73 hypnotic: 15, 81; see also arational,
Gillian, B., 47 meditation, trance
Gillian, S. N. Jr., 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14,
15, 29, 32-4, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, I
42, 44-5, 46, 47, 54, 57, 58, 59- ideology: 2, 16, 18, 19, 49, 53; fearism
60, 68, 69, 72, 73, 76, 79, 86, 89 (unconscious), 19; see also
Glassner, B., 15, 89 dictatorship, discourse(s),
God: 64; see also religion(s) fearism-t, fearmongering,
Greco-Roman (ancients): 41 ideologism
Greek society: 36; see also philosophy, ideologism: 63, 74; fear and, 33
Sparta imaginary: 5, 24, 35; fear, 78; see also
imagining
H
imagining: 4, 15, 29, 35, 42, 49, 51,
Harrison, G., 73 87, 88, 95; see also arational,
Hiss, T., 19, 25 imaginary
hierarchical security: 88 In Search of Fearlessness Project. see
historical: 5, 16-17, 20, 31, 60, 85; Fear Fearlessness Project (Movement)
Problem, 14; knowledge, 16, 36 India(n): 21, 46, 76, 90; see also East(ern)
history: 1, 10, 13, 16-17, 21, 22, 24, Indigenous: 30, 72; Lakota Sioux,
26, 30, 38, 49, 67, 72; defining 15; scholar(s), 35, 69; see also
fear, 37; gender-bias and, 61; of magic(al), shaman(s), worldview
emotion(s), 63, 69; of philosophy, individual(ism): 12, 19; see also
68; see also Age of Anxiety, utilitarian(ism)
ancient, modernity, phobial turn individualist(ic) psychology: 5, 15, 41, 81
holistic-integral: ix, x, 2, 5, 12, 13, 14, integral: 14, 88; Fearism Model (Three
26, 45, 53, 57, 59, 82; see also Pillars), 46; see also evolution,
critical philosophy (theory), holistic-integral, systems (theory)
ecological knowing, integral, Information Age: 40
meta-perspective, pluralistic- integrative thinker: 30; see also
holistic, spectrum perspective, complementarist, holistic-integral,
systems, transdisciplinary nondual(ism), systems (theory)
Hong Kong: 20, 30 Intelligence (systems): 37, 38, 86;
hope: 31, 74; see also trust multiple, 81; Defense, xiii;
horror: 85; see also terror(ism) survival, 82; see also defense
human condition: 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 33, mechanisms, fear(s), systems
39; fear-conditioned, 42; see also (theory)
Beckerian, fear-conditioned intuition: 15, 81; see also arational,
human existence. see existence dream(ing), trance
human frailty: 12 irrational: 15; see also arational
human knowledge: ix
D99E
J lie(s): 12, 45, 59; see also deception
literacy (critical): x, 5; see also education,
Jacobs, D. T., 15, 47, 69, 89; see also Four Fear Vocabulary (new)
Arrows literary: 2, 20, 28, 46, 47, 53; criticism,
James, W., 4, 14, 90 7, 21; fearism (movement), 16,
Jamesian: 4 scholars, 40; underground, 30;
Jha, A. N., 31, 46 see also fiction, poetry
Johansen, K., 69, 89 logic(al): 12, 37; intuitive, 13; see also
reason
K
Love (and Unity): 62, 86; see also
Kafle, R., 21 compassion
Kalu, O. A., 25, 46, 50, 68, 71, 74, 79, Love and Fear (problem): 62, 72, 85, 87
85, 87, 89 love: 55; and courage, 75; of wisdom
Kanel, C. N., 69, 89 (philo-sophia), 40; see also Love,
Khan, N., 79 unity
knowing: 1, 6, 34, 57; ecological, 15,
81; fear and, 38, 82; knowing M
itself, 13; multiple modes, 13, magic(al): 41, 60, 81; consciousness, 15;
81; philosophy and, 39; rational, Indigenous, 30; see also arational,
81; realms of, 41; see also mystery, tribal
epistemology management. see conflict(s), education,
knowledge. see historical, human fear(s)
knowledge, media, wisdom marginal(ization): 11, 19, 51, 59; see also
Koran: 33 borderlands, shadow
Krishnamurti, J., 15, 33, 89 Marx, K., 28, 65
Kumar, B. M., xiii, 21, 26, 45, 46, 47, 60, Marxism: 20, 30, 68, 91
69, 71, 73, 74, 76, 79, 87, 88, 90 media: 85; see also knowledge
meditation (contemplation): 67, 81; see
L
also compassion, peace, spirit(ual)
Lakota Sioux. see Indigenous meta-driver: 13; see also motivation(s)
landscapes of fear: 42, 91; see also fear(s), meta-perspective: 14
geographical meta-philosophical: 56
law(s): 27, 72, 88; Creation’s, xiii; meta-service (healing model): 17
without fear or favor, 71; see also metaphysic(al)(s): 67-8; radical
criminology, ethic(s), political, (Subbaian), 67; see also
security philosophy
Lazier, B., 15, 90 Middle-East: 60
Left: 68; see also liberal, political modernity: 9, 14, 30, 41; phobic regime,
liberal. see Left, liberation, political 9, 90; post-, 2, 5, 9, 13, 14, 26,
liberation: 32; see also Enlightenment, 41, 53, 91; see also ancient,
freedom, political
D100E
Enlightenment, rational(ism), North America(n): 19; see also
post-postmodernity America(n), Canada
moral(ity): 72, 89; see also ethic(s)
mortality: 7; see also death, fear (death) O
motivation(s): ix, 7, 17, 30, 33, 42, 45, objectivism: see also utilitarian(ism)
56, 65; fear-based (drive), 55; see Olson, K., 65-6, 69
also meta-driver, social driver ontology: 42, 43, 44, 45, 64, 83; see also
movement(s): ix, x, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, being, essence, fearontological
16, 20, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, oppression: 83; see also casteism,
37, 58, 59, 69, 71, 83; see also classism, colonialism, fearism-t,
fear-positivism, ‘Fear’ Project, prejudice, racism, repress(ion),
Fearism, Fearlessness Project sexism, violence
(Movement), social, political Overstreet, B. W., 14, 69, 90
mystery: 13, 35; fear as, 1, 3; see also
magic(al), myth(ic)(al), mystic(al), P
spiritual(ity), universe,
Pain, R., 19, 25, 90
mystic(al): 32, 33; see also mystery,
panic: 20; see also fear(s), terror
nondual(ism), shaman(s),
paradigm: 5, 68; Fearlessness, 45, 62;
spiritual(ity)
feminist, 41
myth(ic)(al): consciousness, 15, 60, 81;
paranoia: 85; see also phobia(s), phobic
Fear itself, 36; see also mystery,
regime of modernity
religion
pathological: fear, 3, 9, 17, 83; see also
N ‘fear,’ fearism-t, negative fear,
pathology, toxic
Natural realm: 6; see also Cultural pathology: 45; cycle of fear, 48; of fear,
realm, Spiritual realm 69; see also repress(ion), shadow
natural(ly): 8, 42, 45; fear, 3, 5, 18, 42; peace: 75; Studies, 74; see also
super-, 36; terror, 44, 45 consciousness, love, meditation
Naturalism: 8 philosopher(s): 1, 8, 32, 39, 50-1, 59,
Nature: 43 63, 64, 66, 68; amateur, 22, 40;
negative fear. see fear(s), fear-negative, Eastern, 30, 33, 58; extremist
fearism-t, negativist(s) (not), 59; fearism, 6, 29, 34,
negatively terrified (too): 12, 44 46, 49, 58, 62; modernist, 41;
negativist(s): fear-, 14, 17, 20 of fear, 76; professional 15, 39;
Nepal(i): 7, 8, 16, 20, 21, 25, 28, 29, 30, rationalist-based, 41; see also
31, 38, 46, 58, 89 philosophy
Neupane, T. P., 25 philo-sophia: 40
Ngan, D., 69, 90 Philosophia, 37
Nigeria: 25, 51, 62, 74 philosophism. see trans philosophism
non-dual(ism): 33; see also mystic(al), philosophizing: 7, 41
unificationist
D101E
philosophy: ix, x, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16, phobial turn: 9, 15; see also horror,
24, 26, 28, 30, 38, 40, 63, 66; paranoia, phobia(s), trauma(s)
critical, 6, 20, 59; discipline, 52; Phobos, 36
educational, 32; emotions, 66, Plamper, J., 15, 90
69; fear as central (fearism), 29, Plato, 64, 65
83; first principle notions, 68; pluralistic-holistic: 58, 59; see also
history of, 68; integral, 14; ism holistic-integral, transdisciplinary
and, 8; late XX and early XXI, poetry: 14, 16, 30, 41, 47; see also literary
85; Marxism, 68; meta-, 56; political: 2, 5, 18, 20, 26, 41, 49, 91;
modernity, 9; Naturalism, 8; of artistic-rebel, 30; extremist not,
Life, 78; of unity, 86; practical, 39; 59; fear and, 40, 90; fear is not
professional, 15, 39; Psychology private, 5; fear/terror, 18; fearism,
from, 7, 57; Rationalism, 8; 18, 20, 24, 53; mainstream,
rationalist, 41; reductional, 68; 59; reformist, 28; science, 19;
rigorous, 39; role, 26; schools, socio-, 19; see also Berlin Wall,
27, 61-2, 77,82; security and, 40- Black, colonialism, conflict(s),
50; Socialism, 8; Subba’s, 67; see conf lictwork, dictatorship,
also academic, critical philosophy discourse(s), enemy, ethnic
(theory), dualist, Enlightenment, hatred, fearmongering, ideology,
epistemology, existential(ism), fearism, fearwork, freedom,
Greek, meta-philosophical, Left, movement(s), liberal,
metaphysic(al)(s), modernity, liberation, oppression, pluralistic-
ontology, philosophers, holistic, postcolonial, power,
Philosophia, philosophizing, prejudice, radical, resistance,
philosophy of fear, rational(ism), revolution(ary), Right, Socialism,
reality, social, Stoic(ism), trans terrorism, war(s)
philosophism, truth, populist: 21, 40; discourses, 20; fearism,
philosophy of fear: ix, 57, 76; defined, 2, 53, 83
83; see also philosophy of fearism positive fear: 75; see also fear-positive
(Fearism) positivists: 13, 14, 20; see also
philosophy of fearism (Fearism): defined, fear-positive
83; see also fear-plus(ing), postcolonial: 30; see also Left, liberation
Fearism, Fisherian Fearism, postmodernity. see deconstruct(ion),
philosophy of fear, Subbaian modernity
Fearism, Subbaian-Fisherian post-postmodernity: 14, 26
Fearism power(s): 2, 4, 12, 32, 68; fear and,
phobia(s): 6, 82; see also paranoia, 12, 17, 36, 40, 85, 86; -fear-
pathology knowledge, 5; fearism and, 69;
phobic regime (modernity): 9, 90; see will to, 35; see also political
also paranoia prejudice: 90; see also oppression
D102E
primal: ancestors, 15; awareness, 89; see repress(ion): 12, 30, 42, 44, 45, 55, 59 ;
also Nature, primitive, tribal of fear/terror, 44; see also defense
primitive: fear system, 41 mechanisms, denial, dissociation,
psyche: 82; see also soul ideology, lie(s), oppression,
psychiatry: 24, 28; see also feariatry pathology, psychology
psychoanalysis: 28; see also fearanalysis revolution(ary), 20, 75; see also political,
psychological-individual utilitarian: 36; radical, resistance
see also individual(ism) Right. see also conservative, dictatorship,
psychology: 10, 30, 31, 82; clinical, 75; political
discipline, 24; fear and, 5, 24, 57; risk: xi, 11, 13, 52, 75, 89; see also fear(s),
fearism and, 28; from Philosophy, security, trust
7, 57; individualistic, 5, 81; Roosevelt, E., 9
reforming, 24; see also fearology, Roosevelt, F. D., 9
self Rowe, D., 69
Russia(n). see Soviet Union
Q
S
R sacred, 36
race: 29; see also culture Sadriwala, M., 87
racism: 83 Sapkota, D., 79, 90
radical: 5, 13, 20, 24, 44, 59, 61, 64, 67; scaring: ourselves to death, 44, 84; see
see also revolution(ary) also afraid; culture of fear
Rai, N., 46, 90 scientific: 13, 60: see also empirical
rational(ism): 8, 12, 13, 15, 41, 42, 43, security: 30, 50, 72, 88; see also law
67, 81, 83; see also empirical, self: 2, 12, 13, 15, 40, 53, fear/, 58; -ish,
Enlightenment, logic(al), 72; -system regulation, 45
modernity, philosophy, reason, sexism, 38, 83; see also gender
scientific Severini, P., 64
reality: 2, 3, 6, 12, 29, 30, 35, 36, 41, 45, shadow, 20, 38; see also margins,
47, 54, 58, 59, 61, 71, 74, 90; see pathology, repress(ion),
also ontology, truth unconscious
reason: 81; see also logic(al), rational(ism) shaman(s), 41, 89; see also magic(al)
reconstruct(ion): 4, 5, 82; see also Sheppard, J., 75
deconstruct(ion), vision(ary) Shirlow, P., 19, 25, 90
reductionism: 5, 12, 57, 65, 68; see also Simon, L., 14, 90
scientific Socrates, 65
religion(s): see also Bible, Christian(ity), social: 13; change, 10; driver, 12; fear,
cosmological, God, Koran, 42; media, 21; norms, 42; order,
myth(ic), spiritual(ity), 72; psychology, ; philosophy
theological, wisdom (fearism), 2, 15, 20, 40, 52, 56, 83;
pro-, 13; reality, 59; repression,
D103E
45; science research, 86; self/ systems (theory): intelligence, 82;
society, 15; species, 42; terrifying, living, 15, 37, 75; non-neutral, 3;
42; trust, 59; vice, 74; work, 75; unified, ix; see also ecology, Fear
see also civilization, collective, Management Systems (theory)
culture, morality, movements,
Socialism, socialization T
Socialism: 8 Tavis Smiley, 47
socialization: 26; see also culture, social terrified: 12, 17, 44; by education, 47, 89;
soul: 51, 82; see also psyche, sacred, by life (existence), 44; natural, 44;
spiritual(ity) see also afraid, terror(ism)
Soviet Union: 20 terrify(ing): 2, 42, 76; see also existence,
spectrum perspective: 77, 88; see also terror(ism), universe
holistic-integral Terror (Age of): 9
Spiritual realm: 6; see also Cultural terror(ism): 18, 20, 25, 38, 42, 72;
realm, Natural realm, climate of, 44; manage, 50;
spirit(ed): 31, 37; of fearlessness, 45 natural, 44, 45; philosophy of, 86;
spiritual(ity): 13, 41, 60, 91; prophetic, 59; repression of, 44; see also fear(s),
see also arational, cosmological, horror, panic, terrified, terrorism
meditation, mystery, mystic(al), terrorism: x, 18, 19, 25, 68, 83; dialogue
religion(s), soul, theological on, 87, 88; researcher, 70; see
standpoint theory: feminist, 61; Wilberian also fearism, fearism-t, political,
meta-perspective, 14; see also terror, violence
critical philosophy (theory) Thapa, B. B., 46
Stoic(ism): 13, 27, 41, 47 ; see also theological: 62; see also religion(s),
existential(ism) spiritual(ity)
Subba, D., ix, xiii, 1-2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, theory: 46; complex systems, 3; critical,
14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22-4, 25, 20; fearism, 2, 14, 22, 23, 49-70,
26, 27-8, 29-31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 88; integral, 14; unified systems,
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42-3, 45, 46, ix; pathological fear, 9; see also
47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55-6, 57, 58, standpoint theory
59, 60, 61, 63-4, 66-7, 68, 69, 70, therapeutic: 8, 41; fearism, 20;
71, 72-3, 74, 75, 76, 77-8, 79, 81, movement, 8; see also feariatry
83, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91; innovation, therapy: behavior, 41
67; metaphysic(al)(s), 67; radical Tilmati Fearism Award: 31, 47, 87
metaphysical orientation, 67; Time Problem: 12, 72; see also fear(s)
Wikipedia page, 16-17 timelessness: 88
Subbaian (Fearism): 17, 19, 21, 22, 54, toxic: 18; fear related, 1, 3, 6, 17, 26, 48;
58, 61, 64-5; -Fisherian (Fearism), see also fearism-t, negative-fear,
17, 19, 22-4, 38, 49, 62 pathology
Sunbeam, K. C., 69, 91 trance: 15, 81; see also arational, hypnotic
D104E
trans philosophism: 14, 20, 56, 64, 65, vector: fear, 3, 23; force-field, 86
90, 91; see also Fearism violence: 20, 38, 85; see also classism,
transcultural: 24 oppression, racism, sexism,
transdisciplinary: ix, 5, 15, 24, 32, 39, terrorism, war(s)
40, 47, 57, 58, 59; defined, 84; vision(ary): 1, 26, 46, 54, 72, 75, 78;
fearist, 11, 13; fearology, 83; see new, 46; re-, 9, 28, 65
also holistic-integral, pluralistic-
holistic, transcultural W
transform(ation): ix, 6, 19, 20, 47, 89; see war(s): 31, 36, 73; civil, 73; studies,
also change 74; see also battle(s), Cold War,
transformative: 1, 37: discourse, 61 violence
transhuman: 85 Watts, A., 33
trauma(s): 32, 38; see also phobial turn Weako, J., 47
tribal: 30, 41, 91; see also Indigenous West(ern): 12, 19, 20, 28, 30, 41, 45, 58,
trust: 55, 59, 63; see also hope, risk, 89; see also Enlightenment
security Westernization: 30; see also colonialism
truth: xiii, 6, 10, 32, 55, 71, 86; about White, D., 64
fear, 12; empirical, 8; reality and, White, J. K., 19, 25, 91
30; terrified by, 44; see also reality Wilber, K., 14, 91
Tuan, Y-F., 42, 47, 91 wisdom: 4, 33, 37, 40, 57, 60; compassion
and, 12, 58; lessons, 30; see
U
also philo-sophia, philosophy,
unconscious: 19, 20 ; see also arational, religion(s)
shadow worldview: Indigenous, 15, 89; see also
unificationist: 76; see also integrative, cosmological, Four Arrows
nondual(ism) word(s): 3, 35, 37; power of, 4; see
unified. see systems (theory) also dictionary analysis, Fear
unifier: 86; see also compassion, love Vocabulary (new)
unity: 62, 86; see also unifier
universal: 9, 81; philosophy of fear, 83; X
theory of fearism, 23, 49, 77; see
also Four Freedoms Y
universe: 1, 12, 35, 71; dangerous, 2;
terrifying, 76; see also mystery, Z
terrify(ing)
utilitarian(ism): 11-2, 13, 36; see also zeitgeist, 20
individual(ism), objectivism,
rational(ism)
V
VanderWeil, E., 14, 69, 74, 79, 91
D105E

Philosophy of Fearism A Primer

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Philosophy of Fearism A Primer

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Philosophy of Fearism A Primer

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Philosophy

ISBN: Softcover 978-1-6698-3107-5

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in

Print information available on the last page.

Rev. date: 08/17/2022

Cover art and design by R. M. Fisher

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Time For A Primer on Philosophy of Fearism����������������������������1

History and People Behind The Philosophy of Fearism�������������������16

Fearism: A Mixed History�����������������������������������������������������16

An Intellectual Movement in Philosophy and Beyond���������������������26

Founders: From Dyad to the Triad����������������������������������������28

What Philosophers Would Think of Fearism?������������������������50

the wise ones who have known fear, by turning toward

W here does anyone go for a quick resource guide to

A cknowledgements are for me the way to express

S omething happened in our collective fearstory. Once

Time For A Primer on Philosophy of Fearism

Fear is a mystery. It is as vast as the universe....It

[T]here is no life without fear....Reality or life in an

D2E R. Michael Fisher

The Search for Fear-Plus

The resources are now available to change our minds

Philosophy of Fearism D3E

D6E R. Michael Fisher

Nepali writer-poet Desh Subba coined his version of “fearism” for

Frequently Asked Questions: (5). Did Subba’s notion come

Philosophy of Fearism D7E

For over three decades I have systematically engaged the topic of

D8E R. Michael Fisher

Philosophy of Fearism D9E

Frequently Asked Questions: (8). Is this just for academics?

D10E R. Michael Fisher

Risking to Care Deeply for Fear

Fear is not easily knowable, says the transdisciplinary

Philosophy of Fearism D11E

Philosophy of Fearism D13E

1. Subba (2014), p. 11.

D14E R. Michael Fisher

Philosophy of Fearism D15E

Fearism: A Mixed History

He [Desh Subba, 1965-] started fearism as a literary

L ike with any philosophy and movement that goes with

Fear is a power that always attracts us. [3]

R. Michael Fisher, began to use on rare occasions the term “fearism”

Philosophy of Fearism D17E

Frequently Asked Questions: 12. Is the arising post-1990 turn

Philosophy of Fearism D19E

D20E R. Michael Fisher

Although many cite Subba’s discovery of fearism beginning in 1999,

Philosophy of Fearism D21E

In late 2014, Subba contacted Fisher because he had found some

D22E R. Michael Fisher

Subba distributed my paper in the E. and spoke highly

Inevitably, with the meeting of Subba-Fisher, there was to arise, for

Philosophy of Fearism D23E

Frequently Asked Questions: 14. Is philosophy of Fearism

D24E R. Michael Fisher

1. A good review of that literature, and critique, see Fisher (2017a).

Time For A Primer on Philosophy of Fearism��1

History and People Behind The Philosophy of Fearism��16

Fearism: A Mixed History��16

An Intellectual Movement in Philosophy and Beyond��26

Founders: From Dyad to the Triad��28

What Philosophers Would Think of Fearism?��50

(a) collect, research, write and teach so as to improve

(b) to analyze fear management/education theories

(c) to coordinate a postmodern and post-postmodern

1. they not only want to apply philosophy of Fearism as

2. they ought to be practitioners who understand

3. they need to take risks and be honest and bold;

1. a good theory of fearism would be based on data