... Of Fear, Courage, And Emotional Intelligence.

Fear is such a debilitating emotion that is, at times, difficult to confront. Fear is a very strong emotion and it can paralyze some folks into inaction. It is so powerfully enervating as some forms of severe depression that it could leave one curled up in the fetal position in bed with the blinds drawn. Fear could render someone totally useless for days on end, if a person becomes overwhelmed by the specter of a seemingly hostile world. I am convinced that there is a direct correlation between depression and fear. I could go a step further to suggest that they might also have a direct causal relationship in that fear leads to depression, or the obverse. Fear effectively shrinks the size of one's world when almost everything begins to be perceived as a potential threat. Fear triggers a simple survival mechanism which effectively dims out any extraneous light until all the focus is directed on one tiny, tolerable point of light. If a person is unable to confront even the smallest source of light, this is when one ends rolled up in a ball,on a bed in a darkened room. It is an instinctual action to stay still, embrace the darkness, until the sense of danger passes. This is a comfortable, and common level of non-confront predicated on the hope of the situation easily resolving itself. In this instance, it seems safer to look within for a solution rather than to seek the aid of some external agency. Even if all it involves is a subconscious effort not to move, not to draw attention to oneself. Actually, this type of response is only one of six possible responses to the devitalizing effects of fear.

The six responses to fear are best illustrated by the hunter folklore of the Khoisan (the nomadic, and pastoral tribes of the Kalahari and Namib deserts). Basically, as the story goes, these six ways of approaching fear are a throwback to survival instincts developed in the wilderness. The six choices are to avoid, befriend, fight, flee, ignore, or succumb to the source of fear. These choices are an expanded version of the more putative western 'fight or flee' syndrome. The lore goes that a hunter wakes up one morning to discover a lion sleeping at the entrance to his cave. He has to get past the lion in order to check on his traps. The hunter has to quickly decide how to best handle this situation. He could attempt to tiptoe past the sleeping lion (avoid). He could take some leftover meat and bones and try to feed the lion (befriend). He could grab his weapons and attack the lion (fight). He could look for an alternative egress out of the cave (flee). He could simply wait for the lion to leave of its own volition (ignore). If the lion should be startled and attack him, the hunter could lay down and play dead (succumb). The leitmotif of these six choices is that the hunter has to decide how to confront his fear. He has to act in some fashion that we can safely deduce that courage is an integral component of Khoisan culture.

It follows, therefore, that courage is not necessarily the direct opposite of fear. Courage is neither a lack of nor an absence of fear, rather it is the ability to act in the face of fear or danger. Courage demands direct action and is a specific skill to overcome the debilitating effects of fear. The body, instinctively, injects adrenaline into the bloodstream, shortens breath, tenses the musculoskeletal system, and releases toxins via the sweat glands when it prepares to act in dangerous situations. This seems to work when the fear or dangerous stimuli is suddenly introduced into one's environment. However, it doesn't seem to work as well when the dangerous stimuli is insidious or cerebral in nature. This form of fear induces the debilitating physical effects intimated in the exordium. This type of fear is induced by an inferiority complex, severe self doubts, and a lack of self confidence. I am fascinated by how some people opt to capitulate to fear rather than to seek understanding and resolution through any of the six agencies discussed above.

It is almost counter-intuitive that even though most people are afraid to be with their own thoughts, yet most select the succumb option to confronting their fears. I know that people are innately gregarious creatures – well, at least ever since we have been able to vocalize, interpret, and transmit our thoughts. But, we remain scared to be alone with our own thoughts and look to outside agencies for distraction – trashy television, mindless mechanical games (Candy Crush anyone?) - and if that fails, we just curl up and die a little at a time. This phenomenon is most prevalent in troubled romantic dyadic relationships. I mean, where is it written that once couples embark on a romantic relationship, they are bound to make it persist in perpetuity regardless of insurmountable stressors like a lack of trust, a lack of loyalty, infidelity, incompatibility and a lack of any viable relational maintenance strategies? Even if there are children involved, why is the prospect of striking out solo so difficult to imagine? Why is it such a daunting task to face life alone? Flying solo is simply a return to the state one was in before starting a relationship. I am always fascinated by the guests on Springer (I know trashy TV) – who when asked why they will be fighting to stay in a relationship seem programmed, without exception, to claim undying love as their motivation. A secondary reason seems to be based on the longevity of a relationship. It seems that after three days of dating, it becomes almost impossible for some of Jerry's guests to even consider existence without their partner, regardless of infidelity, and overt declarations of the relationship having run its course. Its as if in the eyes of these folks believe it impossible to either find or meet new partners. I put it down to the paralytic effects of fear which are at the bottom of such rationale, such that some people fail to imagine tackling the world either alone or with a specific partner. There certainly might be other socio-psychological reasons why someone might choose to physically retreat from the world, but I am convinced that fear is always the underlying cause.

The principle of the duality of existence stipulates that in life there are always two basic, but opposing, motivating forces: fear/courage and love/hatred. These principles teach that when we are afraid, we retreat from life. However, when we are in love, we open to all that life has to offer with passion, excitement, and acceptance. The only deficiency of these principles is that they fail to address how fear can be used as a motivational tool for success. It seems like an augean task but, with some emotional intelligence fear can become a protean tool for success. The first and fundamental lesson to learn of emotional intelligence is simply to gain an awareness of one's feelings and how one reacts to potential threats. Emotional intelligence teaches us to understand the enervating effects of fear as barmecidal; and to learn to love ourselves first, in all our glory, and all of our imperfections. This is based on the notion of transference found in Psychology, which implies that if we cannot truly love ourselves, then we cannot fully open our ability to love others or our potential to create. So, the hopes for a better world rest in the fearlessness and open-hearted vision of people who fully embrace life. A lack of a developed emotional intelligence will lead to one always being at the short end of the stick of fear; as fear clouds one's ability to correctly estimate the gravity of a situation.

Fear can severely impinge close personal relationships as the afflicted person approaches the relationship from a recessive or weaker position. It seems as if their natural relational maintenance strategies are motivated by a fear of losing the cohesive intimacy of a dyad. In most cases these attempts have the opposite effect as fear turns the relationship into a power play. The fearful partner perceives the other as having ascendancy so much, that their own approach to the relationship becomes to match reality with that perception; either by pulling down their partner to their level, or by raising their own stock to the higher level. The latter exercise is very rare as humans are not wired that way as the fear of failure tends to overwhelm any attempts to raise personal stock. This is the stock in trade of gamesmanship – subdue, beat, intimidate, or defeat your opponent at all costs. It also follows the essence of the Roman military ethos of conquest that dictated that it was more important to be feared than be loved. Don't let fear cloud your judgment – choose to love! Choose to live! Choose to create! And Have fun always!!

Consider this: The greatest obstacle to discovering the shape of the earth, the continents, and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, professor, attorney, and writer (1914-2004)

... Of Ignorance, Racism, And A bar Fight :(

It was an innocuous status update on Facebook -"Prayers going out for the families of Holden Hues who was killed last night stabbed to death bY to black males. I met Holden a couple of times and he was a very nice person he served in the army . You will be missed but not forgotten buddy." Reads like the thoughts of a shocked, and distraught friend. But something about this message stunk to high heaven and caught my eye. Was it that last name Hues? Was a typo – it was Hughes. No, that wasn't it. Was it the endless run-on sentence? No, who cares it's the grammatical wilderness of Facebook. It actually was that “stabbed to death bY to black males.” Hhmm – a soldier stabbed to death and the alleged perpetrators were two black males. Wonder what that was all about? Was it a robbery gone wrong? Was this Holden ambushed or was it a case of wrong place, wrong time? This happened in Hatiesburg, Mississippi which has a rather dubious race relations history. I don't really know why, but something instinctively bugged me about that post. A quick online search yielded nothing. I was about ready to leave it as the incoherent ramblings of a shocked person in the early stages of mourning, when she posted a new update (http://www.wjtv.com/story/22481051/police-soldier-murdered-in-hattiesburg-bar-fight). Turns out he was stabbed by two white males during a bar fight. I was a little miffed when I read that update. So, I reposted her link on her timeline highlighting that the perpetrators were white males. She replied, “Yea u was told they where 2 black males until my friend *** tagged me. Then I saw it on the news. I wasn't trying to be racist in any way.” To which I replied. “It was racist or race baiting at the least .That kind of misinformation belongs to the ignorant backwoods of the 40s.” This back and forth quickly degenerated into this gem: “I'm not dealing w this crap a buddy of mine and bf best friend was just murdered. Show some respect.” That's where I left the conversation which continued for a while longer with her exchanging myopic platitudes with her mother. The gist of that exchange was that: a) It was sad that an American soldier survived war only to be killed on home soil by fellow Americans; b) It was not race baiting to claim it was two blacks instead of the two whites (It is the way a person interpets the wording of it that makes it racists to them.); c) We should be grateful that we have soldiers out there fighting a war (I still do not see the correlation between war and domestic safety.); and d) We really should consider the feelings of the affected families.

The only thing I could not dispute in that extended conversation was that the focus should be on the grieving families. The rest of it is just noise in their own echo chamber. I have thought about my reaction and am still at sixes and sevens about how I handled this little spat. On one hand – I was being crass and insensitive by heuristically [serve to point out] trying to make a philosophical point to an emotionally frazzled, and guileless idjit. I am convinced that she is too oblivious to visualize the bigger picture; but, on the other hand – I was compelled to call out her anosognosia [unawareness of one's defect], ignorance, and the latent racism contained in her little post. I am certain you are aware of apophasis – that's the rhetorical strategy used by most politicians of denying their intention to speak on a subject or topic that is insinuated (I shall not mention Caesar’s avarice... get it?). She was extremely deft at dodging the racism topic by quickly claiming that she was not being racist. Well, you know the old saw about the most prejudiced people being the quickest ones to decry discrimination. Hhhmm – okay, why did this post annoy me so much?

The Facebook effect basically demands that you post every aspect of your life online. In this globalized world, it has become the norm to be digitally voyeuristic as Facebook allows unlimited access to most aspects of a person's social existence. Of course, this is dependent on how discerning a person is about what details of their lives they post. I think that those who frequently update their status only truly feel validated by the number of likes associated with each post. A like means someone has seen your status and has a positive reaction to it. This becomes a popularity contest which, in this environment is predicated on generating interesting posts. This means cultivating loyalty amongst one's digital friends and followers. You are likely to garner 'likes' to your posts if you like other people's posts – it's a system built on reciprocity. I mention the Facebook effect because that is at the bottom of what inspired this post. This has become a society that is technologically hardwired and constantly glued to its computers, smartphones, and tablets. Therefore, every emotional tic must be recorded and acknowledged online. The risk associated with this kind of existence is that there really is rarely a self-editing or self-muting ability which results in folks unwittingly posting racist stuff.

Was this an instance of sheer ignorance of the effect of that choice of words, or was this an inadvertent reveal of some deep seated, and possibly latent racism. I am going with the latter, coupled with sheer ignorant bliss. That is the thing that annoyed me the most; that a seemingly normal, well-adjusted being could be so blatantly ignorant and prejudiced. I can only conclude that she is not only ignorant, but racist in outlook. It reminds me of an old Afrikan proverb which dehorts people from ever pointing an accusatory finger; it simply reminds us that there are always three fingers pointing inwards for that one pointing in accusation. Simple lesson, huh? Well, have I been lax in my observation or have I been tolerant of less than stellar attitudes? I know that I would never classify our relationship as a close friendship, but as more of a familiarity bred out of shared circumstances – the odd party or three at Uni and she dated whatshisname. However, the more important point is that I should have observed the warning signs – there had to be some from her postings and status updates. This wasn't some sudden cataclysmic reveal – there have been questionable, borderline posts in that past. I let those slide and never said a word. Why, then did this one annoy me much – is it because of the rather overt race baiting, or because of the lack of intimate knowledge of the event?

She claimed she was basing her statement on second hand information. If that isn't the dumbest thing ever – well, not quite. In American terms that is par for the course – second hand information, and innuendo is passed off as fact. It is then enhanced, conflated, and introduced into the twitter feed – before long it is known fact. Some of this blame has to fall at the feet of the media who dictate how we perceive our society. If you watch any local newscast, you are led to believe that our cities are not only contemptible wastelands, but are extremely dangerous. Newscasts are structured around the simple principle that if it bleeds, it leads. Another big culprit that perpetuates these narrow racial cliches is Hollywood – that bastion of celluloid make-believe – which has no shame in portraying that: Blacks are criminals; Latinos are either undocumented immigrants or drug smugglers; Whites living in trailer parks are trash; Native Americans are drunks; Asians are butt-kicking karatekas; Europeans have criminal tendencies which manifest as the mafia (Italians, Russians); and all the money is controlled by a Jewish cabal. Since we are regularly exposed to these stereotypes, I think, we are no longer shocked or perturbed when we encounter them in our daily lives. Therefore, in all estimations, the correct reaction should have been to focus on the death of a friend, a soldier. A soldier who served and fought for our freedoms blah, blah … What absolute twaddle! I am just making excuses for her race baiting and racist attitude. That is the intellectual trap that is set every time someone uses the 'patriot' card.

The use of the 'patriot card' has never cut the mustard for me. Firstly, as an avowed pacifist, I hold to the principle that war is a failure in human communication. Secondly, and specific to the case that opened this can of worms, the deceased was killed in a bar fight – regardless of the actual reasons for the fight, he actively participated in escalating the conflict. Thirdly, he was a soldier in a professional army. He voluntarily signed up to go and fight in a war that really has nothing to do with preserving our freedoms at home. These wars, in fact, have severely compromised and negatively impacted the very domestic freedoms that he is purported to have fought for and protected. There have been a slew of legislative maneuverings, since the turn of the century, that have effectively curtailed and threaten to further curtails personal freedoms (The Patriot Act, The NDAA). So, I always handily dismiss this 'fighting for our freedoms' argument with the contempt it deserves. Why is it that all patriotic warmongers fail to see the long term effects of these wars – it's like sticking your hand into a hornet's nest and agitating it like crazy. Eventually, the hornets will organize and fight back against the stir crazy hand. My point is that as long as we remain engaged in these wars means the longer these Acts (NDAA, Patriot) will be in effect and just prolongs a return to true personal freedoms. However, most government bureaucracies, and large institutions are neither in the habit of giving up powers nor reducing their own reach and size. At the end of the day, all this reasoning out is another attempt to excuse what annoyed me in the first place – she is racist and was race baiting like some ignorant, backwoods, inbred idjit from the 1940s. The rest is my extended reaction to how it has become acceptable to simply let instances of overt ignorance and prejudice slide.

Do what you will, but do not let either ignorance or prejudice ever rain on your parade. Here's a final thought:

By a free country, I mean a country where people are allowed, so long as they do not hurt their neighbours, to do as they like. I do not mean a country where six men may make five men do exactly as they like. Robert Cecil, British prime minister (1830-1903).

Have fun always!!