Fear Tactics

The Rundown: Nightmares happen. But what do we fear? We fear what we think is bad. By knowing this, we can discover about ourselves what we think is good. This is because everything has an opposite. Let your fears tell you about your hopes.

In our wildest nightmares lie many secrets about ourselves. Each of us contains our own unique nightmares, and therefore, our own unique secrets. The benefits, however, are not limited necessarily to our insecurities or shame. What we can gain from examining our fears is not just the outline of what we fear, but a view of what we desire.

Whether we make projections indicating that we might lose our friendships, our established trust, or the tools we use, it can be an uncomfortable feeling. This is because fear itself is a reaction to a projected loss of something we value positively. If we didn't value positively something that we project to lose, it is definite that we would not fear. If there is no value to the projected loss, there is no negative association.

Take this example: Judy and Rudy are walking down the street when they encounter a seemingly shady character walking their way. Judy knows this person and understands that he is not a threat. Rudy, however, does not know this person and gathers surface information. Rudy notes that the man's clothes are a bit unkempt and dirty. He attributes the physical appearance to homelessness. He notices the man's swaggering step, and assumes the character is drunk. As the newcomer lumbers on an apparently intended trajectory toward them, Rudy feels his defenses rise. Rudy fears for his safety and for Judy's safety. Rudy values the quality and quantity of life of himself and his walking partner.

Nothing has actually happened, because our new friend, let's call him Hootie, hasn't arrived in the immediate proximity of Judy & Rudy, yet. What Hootie actually wants to do is say hello to Judy and invite the both of them to meet the band called "Blowfish" (not to be confused with Hootie and the Blowfish) playing at the local pub. Hootie works at a local quarry, which often results in dirt transferring to his clothing. Hootie has had a long day, so he did not change his clothes and decided to let loose at the pub straight from work. Hootie is, by his own standards, drunk. However, neither Hootie's intentions nor his identity information have been exchanged, so Rudy is on the defensive.

As we see, knowledge of the actual parameters in play is not necessary for predictions to occur. It is best not to blame Rudy for having such fears. Rudy attributes these negative connotations to the stranger's approach due to his personal experiences.

So what are the requisites for any given fear?

Knowledge of any affecter (such as a visual clue or one of conceptual proximity)
Interpretation that said affecter has the possibility to come into contact with target
Target must be valued positively
Understanding of the connectivity between items 1-3

An amazing underlying ideal of fear is that usually the projection is loss of control or comfort. In Rudy's case, he feared losing the root of control itself, life. Without his life, Rudy might understand that choice can not be made, and therefore control can not be exercised. Rudy might understand that to a lesser extent, control could be relinquished by environmental circumstances. If Rudy felt that the only way to survive was to give the stranger his wallet, then choice (or control) would be relinquished by lack of freedom. The lack of freedom is something that results from his personal valuing of life over money. If Rudy didn't feel like he would be comfortable being put in that position, the positive value projected as a loss is then his ability to make choices freely, not just to make them.

However, this is not always the case as there are some people who fear making choices. So an attempt to place control at the root of fears would fail. If we try to place comfort at the center, then let us suggest that stagnation can be sometimes feared, even to the point of recognizing that uncomfortable activity can be a good thing. As they say (loosely), calm seas make for poor sailors. But it shows that fear is subjective to the individual.

So why is it necessary? In any case, it's not, but it IS useful. We as a species have generally learned that, for the most part, fear can keep us alive. It is easily stated, then, that generally, the human race fears for its own safety because it values its life positively.

But what about those fears that seem useless? These fears are regarded as irrational. The term for these irrational fears is phobia. Irrationality, however, is dependent upon personal experience. Just as fearful situations can be determined from personal experience, so are truths delegated (I'll discuss that more in what I call "Relativity Meory") and such subsequent applications of these truths. So, therefore, what a phobia is will be different from person to person.

For example if one were to think being afraid of bees is absolutely preposterous in any shape or form, then subsequently, one would attribute any fear of bees to being irrational, and therefore a phobia. If one were to attribute the fear of bees to be rational within a given proximity to them, then anything beyond that would be regarded as irrational by comparison. These examples apply, of course, given that no choices, lists, or ranges are put into play.

Finally, what about paranoia? Paranoia is a more specific phobia which places the fear heavily upon the mistrust of other beings, often justified with extreme logic. It is regarded as a phobia because any mistrust of other beings is fine, but in the case of the fears in question, the intense irrationality that accompanies the fears makes them unrealistic. Again, such un-realism and perception of what is extreme logic vary from person to person, making paranoia a subjective term.

So it may be assumed that fears can be irrational in others, but it can be difficult to understand when a fear is a phobia in the self. This is because the person experiencing such a fear has their subjective associations in the fear process that are often based on some form of experience or logic (approved by the fearer). Basically, since the support system for the fear is regulated internally, the logic is usually self-justified. That makes it difficult to partake in the comparison process in search of a different logical connection, because the self has often already created logical pathways declared to be logically sound.

But it is not impossible for one to examine one's own fears. In some cases it will take different circumstances to define a different view of the fear. One method is to study the topic and re-evaluate each condition of the fear. Another method is available when the fear has naturally evolved. One can then use the current state of the concepts and compare them to the old one. The results reveal based on current standards which fear was/is more illogical.

So what can you, the reader, take from this? Knowing what you fear can help you understand what you value. Conversely, knowing what you value can also help you understand your fears. It is possible, then, to:

Put more stake in protecting the things one values (knowing what they are)
Re-evaluate whether one should positively value such things as much as to fear their loss (should it be feared?)
Re-evaluate our logic behind the fears (is the fear rational?)

and/or...