Thanatos & Phobos:'Fear' and its Role in Ken Wilber's

Transpersonal Theory

R. Michael Fisher, Ph.D. © 1997, 2012

Technical Paper No. 4

In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute

Thanatos & Phobos: 'Fear' and its Role in Ken Wilber's Transpersonal Theory

R. Michael Fisher, Ph.D.

Copyright 1997, 2012

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the pub-lisher/author. No permission is necessary in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews, or other educational or research purposes. For information and permission address correspon-dence to:

In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute507 S. James St., Carbondale, IL

62901

Contact author:

r.michaelfisher@yahoo.comFirst Edition 1997

Second Edition 2012

Cover and layout by R. Michael FisherISOF Logo (original 1989) designed by RMF

Printed in USA

The In Search of Fearlessness Institute is dedicated to research and publishing on fear, fearlessness and emotions in general, as well as critical reviews of such works. Preference is given to works with an integral theoretical perspective.

2

2

Thanatos & Phobos: 'Fear' and its Role in Ken Wilber's Transpersonal Theory

- R. Michael Fisher,1 Ph.D. ©1997, 2012

Technical Paper No. 4

PREFACE to the 2nd Edition

Re-reading this paper, nearly 16 years later, I realize how totally into theo-retical fearology I was, with Wilber as one author that was under my lens. I was at times, strikingly, if not embarrassingly, quite sure of myself: "I rec-ommend 'fear' be given full-scale attention on educational, medical, psy-cho-social, spiritual and political agendas around the world before the year 2005." It's not that I disagree with myself younger self, it is just strange ob-serving it across time performing, as if performing for the Kosmos itself some kind of puzzlement, but a serious game that is inherent it seems in the very processes of evolution, that even evolution is trying to still figure out. Whatever else is going on here, it is a good demonstration of a critical fearanalysis of one scholars texts.

Since 1997, this paper has had little circulation compared to other papers in this series. One of the reasons is that it was submitted to The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology in 1997, and was "lost" and/or "rejected" forth-right by the Editor at the time. Correspondence led to the editor saying they received it and would send it to referees. But over a year later, I tried on several occasions to contact the Editor and no replies came back. Not sure what that meant. Although, I always knew this was a difficult and uncom-fortable paper for most anyone. One reviewer, whom I sent the draft copy to on my own, was very positive about it.2 Yet, reality is, Thanatos and

1 Fisher is co-founder of In Search of Fearlessness Project (1989- ) and Research Institute (1991- ) of which archives can be found at http://www.feareducation.com (click on "Projects"). He is also founder of the Center for Spiritual Inquiry & Integral Education (http://csiie.org), and is Department Head at CSIIE of Integral & 'Fear' Studies. He is a con-sultant, coach and teacher and principal of his own company (http://loveandfearsolutions.-com). He can be reached at: r.michaelfisher@yahoo.com.2 Dr. Michael Zimmerman, a Heidegger scholar, wrote after reading it: "Dear Robert, I en-joyed reading your essay on THANATOS AND PHOBOS. You have done a good job of tracking down the references to these and related topics in Wilber's writings, and you have

3

3

Phobos are rather dark and deep subjects and forces to research on. I called them then, for better or for worse, 'Fear'3 (i.e., 'fear' patterns that are meta-motivational dynamics along with 'Love' patterns, that is, Agape and Eros, respectively).

So, in simple terms, this is the first paper I know of that deals with the topic of "Wilber on 'Fear'." It is definitely technical, as I was after at the time to get down exactly what Wilber was saying about them ['fear'] throughout his writing up to that date. And even he, admits himself, was somewhat con-fused about these two forces Thanatos (e.g., what Freud focused on) and Phobos (which most theorists ignore). But I was primarily motivated to write this paper after receiving a draft copy of Wilber's Sex, Ecology and Spiritu-ality ms. in 1994, arriving at the door of the In Search of Fearlessness Re-search Institute, in Calgary, AB. Ken and I had corresponded on other work I was doing involving studying his critics and his responses to them, and he thought I'd have some useful comments on the ms. in its earlier form. It was in that ms. that he dealt so thoroughly, and interestingly, with Thanatos and Phobos. Because my specialty of research and teaching was shaping up around fear and fearlessness, it was a great theory I thought he'd been working on.

To this day, however, I'll say these topics are still wobbly in my own think-ing and even after Technical Paper No. 4. I welcome readers to enter this challenging study and dialogue with me, and others, on these notions and especially their relevance to what I've called 'Fear' Studies. I suggest, that if we are to truly understand the roots of "evil" (and the Shadow, pathology, oppression-repression dynamics, violence, conflict, and devolution in gen-eral) today and in the future, these great 'Fear' forces cannot be ignored as foundational to the unconscious, or if we do, they'll likely come to bite us in the ass, with horrid consequences. Our new integral fear management sys-tems need an upgrade and Wilber's concepts here are very important as I have argued in other places.4 Unfortunately, and interestingly, Wilber him-self pretty much stopped publishing more on these two forces after Sex,

shown inconsistencies that he needs to address. Your essay may be improved by defining Thanatos and Phobos earlier, since some readers may not be familiar with these terms, nor with how Wilber uses them. More careful analysis like yours are needed, in order to prod Ken Wilber into being more internally consistent. His publications flow out rapidly when he is writing, and he doesn't always keep his own views straight, not least because those views are constantly evolving. I am very impressed with his work. Thank you for sharing your fine essay with me. I noticed a few misspellings and/or minor grammatical/stylistic prob-lems, but I don't have any major criticism." (pers. comm. July, 29, 1997).3 See my Technical Papers 1 and 2 for defining why fear and 'fear' are overlapping con-cepts but distinct (go to: http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3).4 See Fisher, R. M. (2010). Also, I have written several blogs on the topic, but they were deleted by a hacker in 2011; someday, I may re-type them on digital for archiving. The lat-est series of blogging I did on this in 2012 with Carissa Wieler (http://beamsandstruts.com/articles/itemlist/user/30-carissawieler and "Death of an Ecologist."

4

4

Ecology and Spirituality (1995) and his short version of it in A Brief History of Everything (1996).

That lacuna in his work, uncannily happened as I was writing this paper. It is also telling, that people in the Integral Movement that Wilber has nour-ished and led, also have virtually ignored this topic, as they have with my work. Fear, and 'fear' it seems are too dark and deep for their interests, if not their constitutions. Who knows. What I do know, is that I am a fan of Wilber-pre-1997 (his strong critical/conflict theory phase), and less so after-wards because he seems to have tried to be more popular (his functional-pragmatist and post-metaphysical stage) and sacrificed too much in impor-tant areas like this understanding of 'Fear.'

Three last points worthy to note: one, in my view, one cannot say they un-derstand integral theory (or Integral Theory) and Ken Wilber's core work, if they don't understand these great meta-motivational forces. One cannot be "at integral" either, if they have not incorporated them (i.e., 'Fear') into their practices; and two, I labeled Wilber's work "transpersonal" and that is cer-tainly what it is to a large degree, however, technically and not without some importance, it is more "integral." Wilber himself has written recently that he left the "transpersonal" movement around the early to mid-1980s. He may have in his own ways, but in terms of declaring that overtly in his publishing, I had not seen any evidence he had done so when I worked on this paper 10+ yrs. after he says he had left. Of course, that controversy and conflict between Wilber and transpersonalists is an interesting story it-self but not the topic of this paper; and, three, this is a paper that I think lays ground work for what I have called an ontopsychosocial therapia (like therapy). It is clearly, not just about fear as a psychological phenomenon alone. That ought to be more clear as you read into Technical Paper No. 4 and go directly, as I advise, to reading Wilber's original works.

*****

Thanatos & Phobos: 'Fear' and its Role in Ken Wilber's Transpersonal Theory

Robert M. Fisher©1997

Abstract: Wilber's transpersonal conceptualization of Thanatos and Phobos are interpreted as two patterns of 'fear' in development and evolution. It is suggested by Wilber's model and this author, that these 'fear' forces may be the source of the processes of pathology that undermine and derail evolutionary progress. The re-view of Thanatos in Wilber's writing proved to be most problematic and requires fur-ther clarification. The evolution of Wilber's thinking has evolved over the years of his career, creating several contradictions and confusions in his view of 'fear,' indi-

5

5

cating the would do well to clarify the relationships and his own internal inconsisten-cies in use of language and concepts from "Dualism-Repression-Projection," and "Atman project" to his latest terms, for e.g., Thanatos-Phobos.5 The author chal-lenges transpersonal researchers to examine why the model of 'fear' presented by Wilber has been virtually ignored by followers, interpreters and critics of Ken Wilber and transpersonal theory. Many critical questions are raised in this analysis, which may lead to a spectrum transpersonal theory of 'fear.' Practical applications of 'fear' and its relation to oppression and violence theory are explored.

Introduction

Ken Wilber is often regarded as the eminent contemporary transpersonal theorist. Zimmerman (1996), philosopher-psychologist and critical transper-sonal ecologist, emphasized Wilber's outstanding role today:

... he has gone further than anyone else in recent history in develop-ing an affirmative vision of humanity's evolutionary history and future. (p. 48)

Walsh and Vaughan (1994) agree that Wilber's worldview has been uplift-ing:

Another of Wilber's contributions is that his system supports a gener-ous and uplifting view of human nature.... of humanity journeying, or awakening, to universal consciousness, is elevating indeed. (p. 18)

Sometimes elevating, though equally sobering, Wilber knows how to drop the 'sword' that cuts to the truth. I have been attracted to Wilber's world-view precisely because he has both a broad and deep understanding of world conflict. His integrative theoretical system, with its limitations, has enormous implications for conflict resolution:

His integrations of apparently conflicting schools and disciplinesreduce conflict and sectarianism.... (Walsh and Vaughan, 1994, p. 18)

However, despite his acclaimed new therapy [therapia] for the Kosmos (Simpkinson, 1995), the resistance and 'fear' toward his worldview from his critics have often created more conflict than resolution.

After 15 years of studying his work and particularly his critics (Fisher, 1997, 1997a), I am convinced Wilber is one controversial and yet, magnificent Kosmic storyteller, who always gives both sides to humanity's tale. Every story that captures attention and lasts eternally has a well-known dialectical formula: never the 'good' without the 'evil'—always a conflict. If the "good news" is that Eros and Agape are the expanding 'Love-forces' pulling evo-

5 Today, I think these Wilberian concepts could also be linked to Wilber's (1995-96) vora-cious critique of "Flatland" (see Fisher, 2011).

6

6

lution and involution toward a Divine-Ultimate-Absolute-One-Emptiness as potential future liberation or enlightenment, then Wilber reminds us the "bad news" is that Phobos and Thanatos are the opposing 'fear-forces' pulling us into frozen "self-contracted" states leading to further repression-oppression and self/planetary destruction (Wilber, 1995, 1996, 1997). This article looks at the evolution of these two forces or patterns of 'fear' and the variations, particularly of Thanatos, which cause confusion in Wilber's the-ory.

Eros and Agape, the two "patterns of Love," in Wilber's (1995, p. 338) Kos-mology, have met the enemy and it is Phobos and Thanatos, the two pat-terns of 'fear.' Reader's of popularized 'new age' Vedanta Hindu philosophy [and some Christian mysticism], like A Course in Miracles (Foundation for Inner Peace, 1985), will recognize in Wilber's Kosmology this universal an-cient story of 'Love' and 'fear' ('Good' and 'evil') as the primordial conflicting opposites both metaphysically and experientially. Elsewhere (Fisher, 1997b), I've documented over 150 references from the post-conventional wisdom literature across the world through time that support this 'Love' and [vs.] 'fear' reality as the fundamental contradiction of development and the human condition.

'Fear'6 is more than a mere "felling or emotion" as most conventional theo-ries, dictionaries and textbooks purvey (for a critical transpersonal spec-trum analysis of 'fear' see Fisher, 1995, 1995a, 1997c).

Fortunately, Wilber's treatment of the grand meta-narrative of Good vs. evil is sometimes amazingly traditional, at other times refreshing and original. Nonetheless, his view of these patterns or great forces are solidly grounded in the best of the mystical wisdom of the E. and W. religious views integrated with contemporary sciences. For this synthesis, his work is unparalleled. This article is a beginning survey of the transpersonal liter-ature on 'fear' and its role in development and evolution. In the long-term of this research, I am curious if transpersonal writers have anything new and

6 [original] The word 'fear' is identified with (') marks indicating the term is under decon-struction and reconstruction from a transpersonal perspective (or fearlessness context). 'Love' is identified similarly, though my research is indirectly oriented toward further explo-ration and uncovering of 'Love' by the path of the via negativa (i.e., what gets in the way/blocks the expression of 'Love'). The use of the capital letter for 'Love' and small letter for 'fear' identifies the working hypothesis that these metaphysical concepts (and realities) are linked ontologically, with 'Love' being the Ground of Being (Source) of the Kosmos and 'fear' being a derivative (wounded form of 'Love' ='love'). Wilber's view on the nature and origin of 'fear' and my own differ substantially, although there are several agreements which are brought out in this paper. Details of the relationship of 'Love' and 'fear' (Uni-bicentric Theorem) are worked out in my other publications listed in the references.

7

7

useful to say about 'fear' (evil)7 that other disciplines of knowledge haven't expressed.

Conflict in Wilber's Evolutionary Narrative

Wilber's voluminous writing of 16 books and 130+ published articles in 24 years, more or less boils down to his transpersonal interpretation and de-scription of the reality of conflict and its resolution on planet Earth. He al-ways leaves us with the conclusion that one can never be certain whether conflict or its resolution will win out in the end. Development and evolution seem to proceed by innovation as the resolution of tension and conflict from one level of consciousness further leads to the next level with a greater conflict, challenging a greater resolution and innovation from the 'Love-forces.'

Zimmerman (1994) claims the nondualist neo-Hegelian "cosmic narrative" of Wilber points to entities in conflict being developmentally driven toward the Divine:

A person's most profound need is to be reunited with the Absolute [notthat there is "other" than Oneness].... Instead of speaking of the attainment of unity, then, nondualists prefer to speak of 'enlightenment' as seeing through the illusion [via "self-realisation" or awakening of consciousness] of separateness. According to Wilber, such insight can occur by virtue of an evolutionary development [trans-formation] involving the loss [death] of the separate sense of self....Existing as an apparently separate ego involves defensiveness, fear,and death anxiety.... The subsequent history of humankind involvesthe dialectical [conflicting] process in which consciousness both desires to regain oneness with Atman [Absolute], but simultaneouslyresists [fears] doing so, because it requires death of the separate-self-sense.... Desiring real unity and transcendence, but terrified ofits cost....(pp. 198-99) [ brackets all original]

Wilber (1995), following the tradition of the perennial philosophy [more or less], tells of the telos in the Kosmos, where "God" maybe "an all-embrac-ing chaotic Attractor" which "pulls" development and evolution toward an omega goal of liberation. However, each stage of growth has its new dis-coveries and freedoms and its "new fears and anxieties" which resist that very freedom, says Wilber:

... each discovery of a new and deeper context and meaning is a discovery of a new therapia, a new therapy, namely: we must shift

7 This direct liking in my early work of 'fear' with evil, as indicated, is not always the case, and it needs more nuance but I would at least say the overlap is there and strong.

8

8

our perspectives, deepen our perception, often against a great dealof resistance [Phobos-Thanatos], to embrace the deeper and widercontext. The self is situated in contexts within contexts within contexts,and each shift in context is an often painful process of growth, of death to a shallow context and rebirth to a deeper one.... a widerfreedom. (p. 73) [ brackets all original]

Humanity's current conflicts are dangerous and "deep" beyond all historical proportions, says Wilber (1995, p. xi), and no superficial "exuberant and fearless shallowness" can provide a solution to these frightening times. What, Wilber reader, can forget his one page introduction in his greatest book to date, Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality (SES):

IT'S A STRANGE WORLD. It seems that around fifteen billion yearsago there was, precisely, absolute nothingness, and then within lessthan a nanosecond the material universe blew into existence. Stranger still, the physical matter so produced was not merely a random and chaotic mess, but seemed to organize itself.... [after describing the whole of evolution from physiosphere, to biosphere,to noosphere and theosphere] But stranger still, a mere few hundredyears ago, on a small and indifferent planet around an insignificantstar, evolution became conscious of itself. And at precisely the same time, the very mechanisms that allowed evolution to become con-scious of itself were simultaneously working to engineer its own extinction. And that was the strangest of all. (Wilber, 1995, p. 3). [ brackets all original]

The interrelationship of conflict, violence/hurting, oppression and 'fear' has interested me generally for over a decade. Wilber's work provides fascinat-ing insights into these relationships.

The focus of this paper on 'fear' and its role in development and evolution is a preliminary sketch of a very complex and demanding topic. Within the limitations of this one article, more questions than answers about the role of 'fear' prevail. It is the purpose of this article to examine the "very mecha-nisms" of development and evolution that "engineer" the bad news of ex-tinction and self/planetary destruction by conscious choices that human be-ings alone are so capable.8 8 In the brilliant sci-fi film The Matrix (1999) by The Wachowski's (of which Wilber was a friend and fan, and commentator on the film in the 10 box DVD set 5 yrs. later), Agent Smith (the villain) challenges Morpheus (one of the protagonists) as a "human being" under duress. Smith is a humanoid form "machine" who controls planet Earth (in c. 2199): "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I've realized that you are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every nat-ural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.

9

9

I believe it was the great depth psychiatrist and humanitarian, Erich Fromm, lamenting on his death bed with the tragically puzzling question to a friend: "Why do humans choose necrophilia [Thanatos-Phobos] over bio-philia [Agape-Eros]?" Answers to that critical question are beyond the scope of this study of 'fear' but an understanding of Wilber's transpersonal model of 'fear' is likely a root source to future answers. A 'big picture' analy-sis, like Wilber's, is definitely welcomed in the eternal debates about 'why' the very mechanisms of evolution seem to have turned against them-selves, to the threat of extinction of the species that has the most highly evolved consciousness and capabilities.

'Fear' and Conflict in Transpersonal Psychology

Transpersonal psychology, as a recent discipline, has taken its own biased course to understanding the Kosmos, consciousness and human potential. In a rather reactionary, if not rebellious movement, the transpersonal ex-plorers tended to focus on less grizzly and despairing questions than Fromm [and existentialists]. Walsh (1992) wrote,

A recurrent and important theme of these criticisms of transpersonalpsychology is that, in its focus on human potential, it has not adequately addressed the negative side of human nature: suffering,existential constraints, the shadow, and evil. This may reflect both humanistic and transpersonal psychology's reaction against the emphasis on pathology of mainstream psychology and psychiatry[and depth psychology]. (p. 41) [ brackets all original]

With new studies of altered states of consciousness and spiritual potentiali-ties, the "transpersonalists" generally, have gone to the other extreme of the "depth psychology" tradition and focused more on "height psychology" (see Visser, 1996 for a review and comparison of these two apparently conflicting streams in current transpersonal theory). Wilber (1995) is critical of the W. stream of influence of people who have powerful spiritual intu-itions of the "Over-soul and World Soul" but who misinterpret these and fall into one or the other conflicting camps: (1) Ego (disengaged "Higher Self" a la Fichte) or, (2) Eco (re-engaged "biospheric union" a la Spinoza). Either of these "two ['fear'-based] variants of flatland ideology," Wilber is ex-tremely critical, where Ego is Phobos-driven and Eco is Thanatos-driven. Transpersonal psychology and studies are particularly susceptible to the former "... 'Higher Self' camp [which] is notoriously immune to social con-cerns" (pp. 515-16).

There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus." In early 1990, I was already writing about FPV+ ('fear' pattern virus) as the culprit that seems to have invade, and/or been created, by evolution to undermine it.

10

10

Walsh (1992) points out transpersonal writers are starting to address envi-ronmental and social concerns and Rothberg (1992) is a leader in promot-ing a "socially engaged spirituality" in transpersonal circles. However, de-spite this enthusiasm in this discipline, Wilber (1993) offers his sobering analysis:

A large number of transpersonalists believe that many of the world'scritically pressing problems from social fragmentation to environ-mental crisis, can only be 'solved' by a transpersonal transformation.I personally do not believe that this is so.... My own feeling is that a theory of world transformation will in effect be a 'mystical Marxism'—that is, it will cover the intricate relations between the 'material-tech-nological-economic' [Eco] base of any society and its worldviews, legitimation strategies, and consciousness states/structures [Ego].This field is virtually wide open. (pp. 262-63). [ brackets all original]

Although there have been many benefits of this height-focus ("Higher Self"), clearly the critics of transpersonal psychology, including myself, have charged the field as having overly ignored 'fear' (evil) in relation to the "whys" of the negative side of human nature and global problematique. Wilber's contribution to understanding 'fear' in this context, as we shall see, has been largely ignored and underrated both within transpersonal circles and without.

Wilber's dialectical blade cuts along the contradictory edge of the human experience. 'Fear' is given its due respect in development, evolution and history. In Up From Eden (UFE), Wilber (1981) more powerfully compared to all his later works, interprets history and [cultural] evolution from a transpersonal view and decidedly "tragic angle,""

But if men and women are up from the beasts and on their way to the gods, they are in the meantime rather tragic figures. Poised betweenthe two extremes, they are subjected to the most violent of conflicts.No longer beasts, not yet god—or worse, half beast, half god: there isthe soul of mankind. Put another way, humankind is an essentially tragic figure with a beautifully optimistic future—if they can survive thetransition. I have, therefore, told the story of mankind's growth and evolution from a tragic angle.... (p. ix-x)

where "painful growth" and 'fear' play a key role in violent conflicts (i.e., At-man project):

... at each new evolutionary step forward brought new responsibilities,new terrors, new anxieties, and new guilts.... that unhappy mixture: hewas mortal, and he knew it. And the more he evolved, the more conscious he became of himself and his world, the more he grew in

11

11

awareness and intelligence—the more he became conscious of his fate, his mortal and death-stained fate. (p. x)

Wilber has consistently been stridently critical of both the extreme optimists and pessimists of human evolution and progress. He concludes we cannot have one-side without the other. Conflict is inevitable and so we'd best learn how to deal with it with new therapia, rather than try to get rid of it from the universe as the optimists would like; or try, like the pessimists, to identify with conflict and strife as all there is and ever will be.

Re-languaging Wilber's synopsis: humankind is a predominantly 'fear'-based figure with a beautifully 'Love'-based potential and future. The how and why dynamics of that 'frightened' condition are crucial to the liberation called for in all authentic transpersonal practices and philosophies "every-where and everywhen." Curiously, after studying Wilber's interpreters, ad-mirers and critics, no author has either challenged Wilber's tragic angle view nor commented on his theory of 'fear' and its role in development and evolution (excepting a brief summary sketch of Thanatos in Zimmerman (1994), and a critique of the Atman project by Heron (1992, 1996).

In Fisher (1997), I concluded that it may be equally as important to study what the critics ignored or denied in Wilber's model as what they have at-tacked. I suggested Wilber's theses on 'fear' (as "Dualism-Repression-Pro-jection" in Spectrum of Consciousness (1977/82), through to his "immortal-ity project," "Atman project" and his latest "Phobos/Thanatos") likely are avoided in transpersonal dialogue and critique,

... because they contain the biggest 'bomb shell' and critique of the Western contemporary society and its values (metaphysics). I guess the fear is too immense for most conventional thinkers to open up the'Pandora's box' of spiritual repression/oppression that has been goingon for such a long time in the West. It takes a 'Sorcerer-Sacred Warrior', like Wilber, to dare enter "where angels fear to tread." [Fisher, 1997, p. 60]

Simply, according to the Wilberian Kosmology, it is more than a little chal-lenging to go beyond the denial that we are a 'fear'-based culture and pos-sibly that could be the root of all our self/planetary violence and destructiv-ity. Zimmerman's (1996) summary of Wilber's theory supports this powerful connection between history/cultural evolution driven by "predictable reac-tions to death anxiety" ('fear' = "death denial")9 and the "origins of domina-tion" and environmental crisis world wide (p. 207). Dr. Ellen Taliaferro (1997), cofounder of Physicians for a Violence-free Society, responded to the question: "What constitutes the core of violence?," saying "Fear," as

9 This argument, and philosophy, similar and from Ernest Becker, has now been shown to have substantive empirical truth (see "Terror Management Theory").

12

12

the cause behind all other causes. It was the remarkable E/W contempla-tive, Thomas Merton who proclaimed:

Weakness and fear are the elements that guide an enslaved spirit....And unless fear be cast out, we cannot find ourselves because wewill not even face ourselves. (Merton, 1981, p. 138)The root of war is fear.... (McDonnell, 1974, cited in Rothberg, 1992, p. 64).

I suppose that is the greatest 'fear': 'fear' of 'fear' itself. And that sounds all too familiar with slight variations, from Montaigne, Bacon, Thoreau to F. D. Roosevelt (Quiqley and Shroyer, 1996, p. 9).

Fathers of Transpersonal Psychology: The Role of 'Fear'

Two of the founding fathers of transpersonal psychology have reminded us of the important role 'fear' plays. On the scientific-side of transpersonal in-quiry, Maslow (1966) warned of the distortion in science, scientists and sci-entific method because of 'fear'-based approaches or what he called a neu-rosis and "deficiency motivation" [problem]:

Most research and most knowledge, he [Maslow] says, comes from deficiency motivation. That is, it is based on fear, and is carried outto allay anxiety; it is basically defensive. Maslow enumerates 21 cognitive pathologies which emanate from this basic stance. (Rowan, 1981, p. 85)

On the spiritual-side of transpersonal development, Assagioli (1993) wrote,

If fear is a poison, then, a poison that destroys human life, life that without it would be so beautiful, joyful and creative.... One of the greatest obstacles to our spiritual development is the fear of suffering.It is necessary then that any [hu]man who seriously intends to travelalong the way of the spirit resolves to overcome this obstacle.... (p. 170, 173)

The late C. Trungpa (1985) and J. Krishnamurti (1995) especially, are among a few of the master philosopher-sages that have spoken out strongly that fearlessness and liberation are directly related and dependent on our understanding of 'fear,' our going beyond fear and our ability to dis-tinguish 'fear' in all its myriad illusions and disguises.

The tragic angle of Wilber, and the study of 'fear' are part of the via nega-tiva path to Spirit and the essential best complement of 'Love' as the via positiva path to Spirit (or Kosmos). Either path, without the other, leaves the spiritual journey partial, if not distortive and harmful.

13

13

Another great father of transpersonal psychology, C. G. Jung, warned us in our search for good without knowing evil. Historically, his enantiodromia syndrome has proven itself time and time again, where the most well-inten-tioned causes of good or love, in their one-sidedness and ignorance of their shadow deficiency motivation, often turn to evil or 'fear' with extreme vengeance [this awareness we need for any good universal ethics today]10

Wilber's (1995) analysis of the 2000 year "archbattle" between the libera-tion movements of the fragmented Eco (Descenders) driven by Thanatos and Ego (Ascenders) driven by Phobos, is a glaring example of the role 'fear' has played and continues to play in transpersonal development [psy-chology], general development and evolutionary progress.

Wilber on 'Fear'

Wilber (1997, pp. 51-57) acknowledges his own theoretical crisis and evo-lution in thinking in 24 years of writing and publishing. He emphasizes the original foundations of his works are still viable and sound today. However, he has made a major shift from a Romantic version [Wilber-1 phase] of de-velopment and evolution to his own E-W. blended version with strong Bud-dhistic and Hinduist influences, integrated with modern developmental psy-chology and empirical studies of consciousness. He has not yet systemati-cally related his own theoretical transformation with changes in the way he has conceived the "forces" of 'fear' in his models [and phases]. The review of Thanatos and Phobos (below), as they have evolved in Wilber's thinking, is a first attempt to examine his changing views of the negative 'fear'-forces in development and evolution.

'Fear' had not directly been discussed or documented in Wilber's earliest writings. His first five books, for example, have only one index reference mentioning "fear," though he does write about 'fear' in a few places—espe-cially, in UFE (1981). Death (Thanatos) and denial ['fear'] of death, and de-nial of Spirit receive attention in all his books, more or less. Phobos doesn't receive attention significantly from Wilber until SES (1995).

To date, Wilber himself has shown marginal direct interest in a theory of 'fear' (his preference is a transpersonal theory of Spirit/'Love'), although his work is undoubtedly a foundational precursor to a transpersonal theory of 'fear.' Future studies of Wilber's discussion of "Dualism-Repression-Projec-tion" (Wilber, 1977/82), "Atman project" (Wilber, 1981, 1980/82), "immortal-ity project" (Wilber, 1983a), "Phobos-Thanatos" (Wilber, 1995), "De-scended grid-flatland" (Wilber, 1996), will likely reveal more important de-

10 I am currently very taken with the work on depth psychology (analysis) and its relation-ship to what I have been developing as a methodology of fearanalysis, and the role of the shadow and ethics in all of that. See Neumann (1949/73).

14

14

tails and patterns about the nature and role of 'fear' in his transpersonal theory. I see all these conceptions as Wilber's attempt to raise the con-sciousness of the power and role of 'fear' in development and evolution. I call them The 'Fear' Project (Fisher, 1997b). Wilber, in personal correspon-dence (Jan. 5, 1995), has affirmed his support for research and explication of a transpersonal spectrum theory of 'fear.'

Two Universal 'Fear' Patterns

The Greek terms Thanatos and Phobos represented gods to the W. an-cients. I see the terms symbolizing great forces or patterns in the human [motivational] experience. Wilber has never explained why he uses such terms but one can surmise it is because they have eternal archetypal en-ergy within them which is trans-historical and transpersonal. Curiously, the perennial philosophy, which Wilber relies on theoretically, has not directly detailed a theory of these universal 'fear-forces,' that I know of. There is no conventional psychological theorist or discipline that pays heed in detail to universal 'fear-forces' as primary in contradiction with 'Love-forces,' other than Mutchler (1989), who's work has long been out of print, virtually inac-cessible and remains unknown to this author and likely most readers.

Thanatos, literally meaning death, makes up the bulk of Wilber's writing compared to Phobos, literally meaning fear. I argue from my own research, that both Thanatos and Phobos are two universal 'fear' patterns,11 which Wilber identifies as opposites to the two archetypal godly "patterns of Love," which he calls Agape and Eros. Without going into details of my ar-gument at this point, suffice it to say Wilber (1995) would likely support the notion of two 'fear' patterns which both involve destructive "flight" from the full-spectrum, "circle of understanding" ("integral vision"), Truth, Whole, Spirit of Kosmos [he wrote]:

11 [original] The reframing of 'fear' from the conventional definition/conceptualization as a "feeling/emotion" to a 'fear' pattern is critical to understanding the largest and deepest as-pects of 'fear.' The terms "forces" or "patterns" are often used interchangeably throughout this article. Elsewhere (see references cited), I have regarded the largest and deepest phe-nomenon of 'fear' as a 'fear' pattern virus (FPV+), which is a conceptualization that would include both Thanatos-Phobos as pathological or "twisted" viral-kike patterns of formative processes in development and evolution. The analogies between FPV+ and cancerogenic viruses and viral growth patterns is remarkable and well worth further investigation in the future. The FPV+ model is one that "transcends and includes" the conventional definition/conceptualization of 'fear' [and fear]. It is therefore a transpersonal model of 'fear' that "tran-scends and includes" all types of "fears" and "fear of x, y, z" and so forth. In Fisher (1997c) I argue there is only one 'fear' and that is 'fear' itself. The most important research on 'fear,' from a transpersonal view, ought to focus on the FPV+ ('fear' itself) rather than be distracted with all the types of "fear(s)." The epistemological implications of how best to know 'fear' are critical in future dialogue on the nature and effects of 'fear' in development and evolu-tionary theory. [ bracket added anew]

15

15

Phobos is Eros in flight from the lower [levels of consciousness]instead of embracing the lower.... Thanatos is Agape in flight from thehigher instead of expressing the higher. (Wilber, 1995, p. 340)

[brackets all original]

Thanatos: The 'Fear'-side Called "Death"

... perhaps more clearly than anybody in history, he [Freud]saw that so much human misery is and always will be a battlebetween the two, and that the only solution to our suffering is a unionof Eros ['Love'] and Thanatos ['fear']. (Wilber, 1995a, p. 87) [brackets all orginal]

Wilber (1995a, p. 86) is quick to challenge Freudian critics to see beyond the battle of Eros and Thanatos as merely "sex" and "aggression," as so popularly and reductionistically imagined. Freud's (1950/64) final word in-volved a reframing of these two fundamental opposing psychic forces to two instincts: Eros and the death instinct:

The aim of the first [Eros] of these basic instincts is to establish evergreater unities... to bind together... aim of the second is, ... to undo connections and so to destroy things... its final aim is to lead what is living into an inorganic state (matter) ["regression" in Wilber's terms].... (Freud cited in Wilber, 1995a, p. 86) [brackets all original]

Eros or biophilia in opposition to Thanatos or necrophilia. Are they really in opposition/dualism (enemies) or are they dialectically complementary? Whether we call these "drives," "instincts" (Freud), "patterns" (Wilber), ar-chetypal energies or forces in development and evolution is symbolic and somewhat irrelevant. I prefer, for now, to avoid the ancient debate of nature vs. nurture and see if anything new appears in understanding these pat-terns of human experience.

The more important point of this paper is that liberation and health on this planet are highly dependent on us understanding the strange paradox and contradiction to a Benign Reality or Goodness, that echoes in Freud, in Buddha and Wilber's (1995) Kosmological story: the very mechanisms of evolution have come to undermine that very evolution, threatening major extinction of Life forms, including the one species that systematically makes choices that breed that undermining and suffering. The undermining forces Wilber calls Thanatos-Phobos and I call The 'Fear' Project (or 'fear' pattern virus; see footnote 11).

Thanatos: Subtler Distinctions and Bigger Questions

16

16

In examining the subtler distinctions within the concept of Thanatos in Wilber's thinking over time, perhaps more clarity can be derived in a critical distinction between "pathological" Thanatos and "natural" Thanatos. In other words, what factor(s) are important in distinguishing "death" patterns or regression as a natural part of life and "death" patters or regression as pathological evil (against Life)? Then the really tricky questions of ontology and epistemology of 'fear' arise and our "stories" of 'Good and evil' (theod-icy) are brought to the surface for re-examination.

What does Wilber tell us about the necessity of regression, death, dissocia-tion, 'fear' patterns, suffering, oppression-repression or evil in development and evolution? Are these forces to be seen in a dualism or dialecticism, or is there another view? Is Spirit to be placed in only Eros and not Thanatos—only in 'Love' and not 'fear'? How is Spirit best understood and lived when this paradox or contradiction of battling forces seem to predominate in the human experience? These questions are not answerable within this short article but point to the relationship of 'fear' and its role in Kosmologies and the purpose/meaning of life. The semantics can become a nightmare without systematic analysis, of which this paper is a beginning.

Thanatos has received the most focus from Wilber because of his reliance on critically-oriented depth (existential-type) psychology-sociology theorists like Freud, Rank, Brown (1959), Becker (1973) (less so Marcuse, 1955) for understanding the role of death, death instinct and 'fear' (denial) of death in human development and civilization processes. As mentioned earlier, Wilber has also broken away from the Romantic aspects of these theorists in the mid-80's and therefore his notions about Thanatos-Eros are also likely to have changed. In tracking Wilber's own evolution in thinking about Thanatos, I believe it is important to remind the reader my focus is not to supply a detailed analysis of Wilber's view on death and its role in develop-ment but to reframe death and the human experience into a phenomenon called 'fear,' of which Thanatos is one of the two patterns of 'fear' that seem important drives in personal, historical and evolutionary development.

As an experiment of interpretation, I begin with the hypothesis that a transpersonal inquiry and view of death is better approached as an inquiry into the nature and role of 'fear' patterning. 'Better' means it is a more fruit-ful and liberating approach to death than from only existential, or only ratio-nal or magicio-mythic approaches along the spectrum. This transpersonal view ought to transcend and include understanding about death ('fear') and the human experience from prior developmental levels. Death and 'fear' become synonymous in this interpretation, which focuses on the metaphys-ical experience as phenomenology in developmental and evolutionary terms. Wilber takes a similar approach. However, he doesn't explicitly make the claim that death and 'fear' are synonymous from a transpersonal view.

17

17

Wilber has long critiqued the "happy rationalist" and existential-humanist position in a few different areas (see Fisher, 1997) but his most telling re-mark came in a rejoinder [to Kurt Schneider]:

... because you [existentialists] have a defense mechanism ['fear'patterning]: a defense against spirit, against the terror of being takenbeyond yourself, which is a type of death.... [existential thinking is stillin] death denial ['fear' of death]. (Wilber, 1989, p. 469) [brackets all original]

Upon this charge have come countercharges from Wilber's critics claiming he and his transpersonal view are metaphysical-escapist in flight from liv-ing with the reality of death, paradox and the real suffering of "this world." Wilber's (1995) analysis of the archbattle between the Descenders ("this worldly" philosophers) and Ascenders ("other worldly" philosophers) for Truth, Spirit and Reality, finds each side accusing the other of 'fear' (death denial) and the cause of evil. The battle across the disciplines of psychol-ogy is ultimately a hurling back and forth the claims (mostly implicit) point-ing out who is in the most 'fear' and therefore who is the most unliberated and cowardly.

The transpersonal view of Wilber suggests strongly that authentic growth and evolutionary development of consciousness moves in a direction of less and less 'fear' identifications (death denial) to a consciousness (Ground of Being) of no 'fear' (Fisher, 1997c). In Wilber (1997), he wrote of this final developmental goal:

Every fulcrum [of developmental advance] embodies a death to one basic level and a rebirth on the next, so that, making stepping stonesof our dead selves, we are finally delivered unto the Deathless ['fearless']. (p. 177) [ brackets all original]

As we approach the understanding of Thanatos more deeply, Wilber's Kos-mology or transpersonal theory ontologically claims liberation, Absolute or Ultimate Reality is "Deathless" (no death denial) and Thanatos is brought to an ultimate end. Are we then left with the seeming paradox or contradic-tion that Thanatos is a necessity of human growth and development via death-rebirth at each fulcrum, only to find, from a transpersonal view, that it is not necessary for Life/Being/Spirit (the liberated Deathless state)?

Two (or three?) Different Types of Thanatos

A problem re: the concept of death (Thanatos) in Wilberian theory is high-lighted in a footnote in his latest book Eye of Spirit (EOS):

18

18

In Eye of Spirit, and again in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, I try to outline several ways in which 'death' and the 'death instinct' have been used by different theorists. This is a semantic nightmare of unparalleled proportions.... there are at least two very different types of "death" that have been recognized from Plato to Freud, East and West—and which I will call horizontal death and vertical death. [underline my emphasis]

Wilber's own dialectical theory accepts the "negative" with the "positive" in regard to horizontal Thanatos in development and evolution. He seems to say horizontal Thanatos, as part of "positive growth," as part of the fulcrum death-rebirth process, is the very "mechanism of disidentification and tran-scendence." I interpret this to mean horizontal Thanatos forces are com-plementary and not, by necessity, against or opposed to Eros forces, un-less there is "dissociation" occurring as part of this death process on a given level of consciousness. Already, this sounds contradictory to Wilber's own model of Eros-Agape ("the good news") vs. Phobos-Thanatos ("the bad news") in SES (see introduction of this paper). To add confusion, there now seems a "health" horizontal Thanatos and a quite different "un-healthy", pathological or dissociated horizontal Thanatos pattern. There seems to be at least three very different types of death (Thanatos) in EOS and they are more confusing than the simpler general claim of one type of Thanatos in SES:

Thanatos is Agape in flight from the higher instead of expressing thehigher. (Wilber, 1995, p. 340)

From this quote it appears Wilber has given Thanatos a 'fear'-based and dissociative form that denies the full expression of the higher (see discus-sion below on vertical death). Wilber doesn't clarify these two very different horizontal types of death and he does not critically examine his own incon-sistent (at least unclear) usage of Thanatos between SES and EOS. I come back to the "dissociation" in later discussions on the very mechanism that undermines the evolution of consciousness and leads to the global problematique.

Wilber also accepts dialectically that horizontal Thanatos and vertical Thanatos go together necessarily:

Vertical death usually means—in Freud, for example—the regressivemovement whereby a higher structure is lost altogether and there is a regression toward the lowest of all levels, insentient matter (and hence 'death').... This shifting down to a lower level is one type of vertical death (this is Thanatos proper, the actual drive toward the death

19

19

of insentient matter, or total regression). (Wilber, 1997, p. 325) [underline my emphasis]

Here, Wilber is accepting the Freudian view of regression ("Thanatos proper") as was also the case in Wilber (1995a, p. 86) cited earlier in this paper. Does this mean it is incorrect use of Thanatos as horizontal death? In this Thanatos of regression, the dissociation Wilber speaks of, or are they two different patterns—or, are they both 'fear' patterns? Wilber was also clear in SES and in Wilber (1995a, p. 87) to point out Freud's limita-tions in what he could offer because of Freud's biological reductionism and/or "Lacking the unifying Heart" of transpersonal vision.

Wilber's Thanatos, 1, 2, 3

In accepting Freud's view of Thanatos proper as Neoplatonic, Wilber was able to make an important shift in his own interpretation of Thanatos, an in-terpretation that sees "Thanatos" in a more positive developmental and evolutionary light than Freud (and the Romantics). Wilber (1997) con-cludes,

... that what Freud saw as Thanatos, the Neoplatonic tradition saw as Agape. (p. 325)

Here is Wilber's spiritualization of Freud's dichotomy of opposing forces or instincts [motivations]. Wilber, almost magically transforms metaphysical enemies in the Kosmos, i.e., 'Love' (Eros) and 'fear' (Thanatos), to two "patterns of Love" because he sees Freud was really expressing Agape ("vertical descending movement" of Spirit). Wilber seems to imply Freud, lacking a transpersonal perspective, merely confused the "vertical ascend-ing" (Eros) as an enemy of "vertical descending" (Agape) when, in fact, they are complementary necessary movements making the full Kosmic Cir-cle or spiral of Spirit in evolution and involution respectively. Implicitly, Wilber is saying it was Freud's own dissociation ('fear') of the transpersonal dimensions that prevented him from seeing the full continuous Kosmic movement and therefore Freud projected his own 'fear' onto the Kosmic Circle and made one half an enemy to the other half—i.e., Eros an enemy to "Thanatos" (which was really Agape)—and one half of the two 'Love' patterns was made into 'fear.' This transpersonal shift of interpretation,

... allowed me [Wilber] to make what I think are some very interestingcomments on all of that, and to reach the following conclusions: Agape split [dissociated via 'fear'] from Eros appears as Thanatos; Eros split [dissociated via 'fear'] from Agape appears as Phobos. (Wilber, 1997, p. 325) [ brackets all original]

20

20

Thanatos is thereby both the agent (cause) and result (effect) of Agape split from Eros. This splitting is dissociation [distinct from differentiation] creating 'fear' or is 'fear' creating the dissociation? Are 'fear' and dissocia-tion the same phenomenon? Would Wilber say dissociation is the agent and result of Thanatos? Are dissociation, and Thanatos the same phenom-enon—'fear' patterning, as I suspect?—but, apparently not in Wilber's defi-nitions where only "... Phobos is the source of repression and dissociation" (Wilber, 1995, p. 340).

In SES Wilber describes the two splits as distinctive: (1) Agape split from Eros via regression tendencies, (2) Eros split from Agape via repression tendencies. In SES Wilber seems to say regression and repression are two patterns of dissociation, as I read it. The "split" is key in the Wilberian the-ory of 'fear'—and it looks like it is dissociation (as 'fear' pattern) that is the very mechanism that can turn 'Love' forces to 'fear' forces, or Life-creating forces to toxic and destructive forces, Good to evil or development /evolu-tion/consciousness against itself. Death forces (Agape), from a transper-sonal view, merely complete the other side (Eros) of the Kosmic Circle and are not a problem in the Life cycle for Wilber and his theory. I agree. There is a "split" or dissociation process that is a problem, and that I explore later. However, Wilber's (1995) model is confusing in that he also attributes a natural kind of dissociation in development and evolution that is simply due to natural increasing "complexity" ("errors" and "dialectic of progress") in systems. Is there a pathological dissociation (Wilber, 1995, p. 105) that is distinct from natural dissociation—not unlike Wilber's insistence on his crit-ics distinguishing between pathological hierarchy and natural hierarchy? I prefer to keep the concept of dissociation as necessarily pathological and 'fear'-based. Wilber obviously holds a place for dissociation that is "acci-dental" in complex systems, but he surely, wouldn't support my view that it is necessarily 'fear'-based dissociation.

It appears Wilber's "new" definition of Thanatos (recall this is 'fear') comes from the following evolution of his own thinking:

Thanatos-1 = using the existential interpretation of "death" and itsrole in development and evolution. Eros and Thanatos are dialecticaland necessary enemies (oppositions).

Thanatos-2 = Neoplatonic spiritualizing of Freud's Thanatos as actually Agape. Eros and "Thanatos" are no longer enemies but complements of 'Love' or Life-forces.

Thanatos-3 = the "new" Wilberian Thanatos is now linked to Phobos as both represent two different but very similar dissociated "split" as-pects (outcomes) of Agape separated from Eros. Thanatos is returnedas the proper regressive (though not necessary) "enemy" of 'Love'

21

21

forces—but not a dualistic traditional enemy, rather a "dialectical" opposition not to be underestimated in its irrevocable destructive capacities.

Wilber (1995, p. 331) resolves in Thanatos-3, what for Freud was his dis-content in that he could not "unite Eros and Thanatos—to unite the way up and the way down—to overcome their eternal strife". However, Wilber's re-defining of Freud's Thanatos to Agape did not erase the strife of Eros/Agape vs. Phobos/Thanatos. The Kosmos is still split in discontent, though Wilber's Thanatos-3 is a metaphysical solution (or clue) that may yet prove to be very useful in liberation.

In Thanatos-3, Wilber has evolved a metaphysical view that is consistent with E-W mystical philosophies (esoteric Christianity, Buddhism, Vedanta) whereby the evil or "bad news" of the Kosmos is really an illusion (maya) or perceptual "twist" of 'Good' or 'Love' but not anykind of different force with a different source than 'Love' or 'Goodness.' Three is only One Source. This allows a transpersonal transformation of 'fear' (evil) that Freud and the "Romantics" cannot ever accomplish in their dualistic despair that forever lurks behind their hopeful ('fear'-based) Idealism.

In Thanatos-3, the not necessary aspect is critical in Wilber's theory of 'fear' and dissociation. I return to this later. It is important now to evaluate if this three part Thanatos model is fair and accurate to Wilber's writings. Let's begin with some of Wilber's ways of defining Thanatos over the years:

a) SES (1995): "... Agape is fast becoming Thanatos—not just a higher embracing a lower but a higher regressing, being reduced to,a lower: the drive to dismantle the higher into its lower common den-ominator parts (thus killing the higher in the process: Thanatos). (p. 429).... compassion gone mad... remaining stuck... (fixation, arrest)—cosmic reductionism run amok.... It preserves the lower but refuses to negate it (and thus remains stuck in it).... And the end game of that re-ductionistic drive is death and matter, with no connection to Source....Thanatos is the source of regression and reduction, fixation and ar-rest. It attempts to save the lower by killing the higher. (p. 340).... pure regression to predifferentiated states, which is not healing but heaping(i.e., wounding). (p. 669) [Wilber's 1995, 1996 consistent attack on "flatland" "Descended grid" of today in his attack on Thanatos primarily. He makes it an "enemy."] [ bracket in the original]

b) "And the opposite [of Socrates/Plato's Eros] of that was regression or dissolution, a move downward to less unity, more fragmentation (what we called the self-dissolution factor, tenet 2d12).... we also call it

12 Wilber (1995), p. 40 outlines the theory of holons, where "four fundamental capacities" that are in constant tension, are: self-preservation, self-adaptation, self-transcendence, and

22

22

the death instinct" (Wilber, 1996, p. 330)

c) "... Thanatos integrated is not the 'death instinct' but Agape" (p. 631)

d) "regression [Thanatos] in service of the ego" (p. 105) [ brackets all original]

From these four quotes we see differences (and contradictions) in how Wilber expresses the qualities of 'fear' (Thanatos) in action in development and evolution. In the first quote, Thanatos "kills the higher." In the second, Thanatos is a natural "self-dissolution factor" of holons, which Wilber de-fines as a "vertical battle" (p. 46) of "constant tension" and "conflict" ("forces") in development and evolution. In the fourth quote, he sees the re-gression ("self-dissolution") as a benign healing process, yet the retro-Ro-mantic regression of Thanatos, Wilber believes is actually more "wounding" (first quote).

However, the confusion of an apparent "killing" (pathos) type of Thanatos and a "natural," "healing" or "integrated" (system "factor") type of Thanatos appears when Wilber (pp. 45-46) describes how the tension or forces can become involved in pathology, where "too much" of any one pole of the tensions "leads to a severing [dissociation] (repression and alienation)"—in which he gives an example that "fear" results. Although, it is unclear what causes what as Wilber describes this dynamic, i.e., does pathology create 'fear,' or 'fear' create pathology in systems? My view is: 'fear' is pathology and pathology is 'fear' patterning. Wilber is less clear about this relation-ship, as is his definition of Thanatos—all problematic. Support for my thesis comes from Wilber's own changes of Thanatos, to where his most recent conclusion is Thanatos is intricately linked in a continuum with Phobos ('fear'). Both Thanatos-Phobos appear in the Wilber Kosmology as against and pathological relative to Agape-Eros—recall the two 'fear' patterns and two 'Love' patterns. This mixed bag of confusions, paradoxes and contra-dictions seems to fit nicely the Thanatos-3 (above). If Wilber sees this Thanatos-3 as the latest integrated conceptualization, then it appears to be less integrated and more a "heap" of parts still awaiting full integration (per-haps a Thanatos-4?).

Before leaving SES, I want to point out Thanatos ('fear') is a powerful force or "underbelly" (pp. 660-61) in the dehumanizing monological reduction of 'subject' to 'objects,' and abuse of "power over" in the entire Wilberian cri-tique of the W. Enlightenment paradigm. It is the "fearless shallowness"13of the Descenders with the "happy" "hand of Thanatos" (p. 7451) and their

self-dissolution (the latter capacity, Wilber was challenged on by a critic in the last few years, and Wilber agreed to shift that "self-dissolution" term to another more positive term, but I cannot recall where I saw that discussion). I myself find it fits very well as is.

23

23

new paradigms that Wilber claims to be the greatest danger and threat to the modern and postmodern world (p. ix). However, even the Ascenders (Ego camp) have had both Phobos and Thanatos at work with their own "flatland" brand of destruction on Earth.

Generally speaking, Thanatos-3, confusing in its positive and negative as-pects at times, comes out overall for Wilber as more than a little nasty.

a) ETE (Eye to Eye, 1983): "As for death-drive [Freud's Thanatos], Jung criticized thanatos, saying that humans actually possess phobos,a fear of death, not a drive to death. In my opinion, both are true." (p. 238)

b) [Freud's concept of Thanatos is linked to the "dynamic of mysticism" and "ego-transcendence" and "ego-death," which for Wilber have:] "... some sort of thanatos-like elements" (p. 230) [however, Wilber later in the chapter claims:] "... ego-death in actual transcen-dence has absolutely nothing to do with Freud's theories" (p. 234)

c) [Wilber notes the various theorists tend to line up on "opposing sides of the same concept":] "... if you are for transcendence, then you interpret thanatos as a drive to surrender ego and find unity in spirit;" [these are the "transpersonal psychologists" and others like N. O. Brown, C. Garfield and R. D. Laing, according to Wilber]

"... if you are against transcendence, then you interpret thanatos as a drive to abdicate ego and regress to morbid id" (p. 230) [these arethe orthodox theorists: Freud, Ferenczi, E. Becker, according to Wilber] [ brackets all original]

Interestingly, in this transitionary exploration of the role of 'death' (see Thanatos-2) in ETE, Wilber uses small letters for the two Greek terms and links both terms closely for the first time. Thanatos in all Wilber's prior books was capitalized and referred to Freud's Thanatos only (see Thanatos-1). Ideology of the theorist has an impact on how Thanatos is conceived.14 Wilber is seeing at this point the "good sense" to "death" in terms of a process of "ego death" and transcendence in development (sec-ond quote and first half of the third quote above). However, he also sees 13 [original] The "fearless shallowness" Wilber speaks about is 'fear' itself in a defensive stance and operative "counterphobic" reaction, making it look like great bravery or courage. This, I agree with Wilber, is the most dangerous expression of 'fear.' Courageous acts of ha-tred (toward self, or other), for example are nothing but terror [terrorism] ('fear' patterns) hidden well-below the acting out of extreme aggressivity disguised as great courage. True fearlessness is completely a different phenomenon than "fearless shallowness" (see Trungpa, 1985). I have pursue this critical theme in Fisher (1997c). [Today, it is well distin-guished in my attempt to build a new organization of these terms from bravery (bravado), to courage(ous), to fear-less, to fearlessness, to fearless (see Fisher, 2010)].

24

24

there is the "death" of Freud's "death drive" which is more the "bad sense," which Wilber says is,

... (premature and useless destruction, or simple degeneration)... (p. 231) [i.e., regression/pathology] [ brackets all original]

Wilber then connects "Thanatos" to involution as a necessary movement of consciousness in a Neoplatonic mystical sense [Agape15]. Yet, confusingly his description of involution [Agape] starts to sound like the "bad sense" (Freudian "death instinct" or "drive") of Thanatos:

... the second is descending, regressive, involutionary.... The involutionary movement is simply a shift in the opposite direction—it is a move down the hierarchy and thus is marked by increasingalienation, fragmentation, lack of unity, and disintegration. (p. 231)

Freud of course, was severely criticized by everybody, including his own followers, for proposing the death instinct [drive] (thanatos), but clearly it is exactly what we have in mind with the descent factor... orthe involutionary drive. It is simply the impulse to move to a lower levelin the hierarchy, and its final aim... is therefore insentient matter. In that sense, it is a death instinct, a death drive, a primal masochism. Not a fear of death, but a drive toward it. [contra Jung] (p. 233) [Wilber says the neo-Freudians confused "fear of death" (phobos) with "drive toward" death (thanatos) and he admits he confused the two as well in his earlier Atman Project book] [brackets all original]

Wilber claims "thanatos" as involution (Thanatos-2), which he claims (EOS, p. 325) is Agape. Yet, he defines "thanatos" [Agape] in ETE "... as a drive to surrender ego and find unity in spirit" (p. 230)—sounds like integra-tion. This is inconsistent with Wilber's defining of Agape in terms of differ-entiation (from One to Many) and the "higher reaching down and embrac-ing the lower" (SES, pp. 338-39). Integration is assigned to Eros in SES. This all seems problematic with Wilber apparently confusing his own defini-

14 This is something I have said about conceptualizations and definitions of both fear and 'fear' (and fearlessness) for decades. That's what makes "defining" these terms so tricky. The tougher question is, which is the 'better' interpretation? What criteria would we use for 'better' or are we destined to just say they are all relative, and worthy equally depending on the theorist and their level of consciousness or ideology? That would not be ethically satis-fying, in my view. 15 I have done a lot of thinking and writing about Agape (Wilber called the "Path of Return" in Up From Eden, 1981). I see it quite differently, with some overlaps with Wilber (and Freud), and would add that it is best to see it as the return to the "Many" from the "One" as a process of differentiation, and integration with the Earth-Communal-Relational forces (i.e., Wilber's "descent factor" and my Uni-Bicentric Theorem of the Kosmos cycle or Cir-cle, or Spiral). I also see it as "feminine" (not in a cultural gendered perspective) as in the psychoanalytic (post-Lacanian) work of matrixial theory via Bracha L. Ettinger.

25

25

tions from book to book and his latest book, EOS, hasn't solved all the problems.

Wilber seems to use regression for both the "good" and "bad" sense of Thanatos in his writing. However, there is an evident struggle to distinguish a pathological regression and Thanatos from a healthy and transcendent-oriented regression and Thanatos. It is apparent Thanatos-2 is a transition in Wilber's conception but a rather confusing one, at least to me. This quote on involution or Agape is truly more negative (i.e., a "primal masochism") than Wilber's later conception of this compassionate 'Love' pattern of descending movement in SES.

There is no point of tracking Thanatos in Wilber's earlier work, i.e., prior to ETE (1983) because of his own admission that he confused "fear of death" (actually Phobos) with "death drive" (Thanatos proper) in his 1980 The At-man Project. There are more than enough confusions of distinctions to sort through in this paper already. Wilber has not commented yet on his use of Thanatos in UFE in 1981, but evidence indicates the same basic error ex-ists as in The Atman Project and for that reason no further analysis of Wilber's pre-1983 Thanatos is useful within the limited context of this pa-per. Because UFE contains Wilber's most detailed explicit account of the role of 'fear' in development and evolution, this work requires analysis in the future, if transpersonal psychology is to contribute a significant view to a developing future theory of 'fear.'16

Phobos: The 'Fear'-side Called "Fear"

Of the two 'fear' patterns, that play a major role in Wilber's theory of devel-opment and evolution of consciousness, Phobos most explcitly and literally means "fear." According to Wilber, it plays a more important role than Thanatos:

Both phobos and thanatos are present in the psyche, but phobos definitely plays the more decisive role. But now the crowning confusion—most of the neo-Freudians trying to use Freud's concept ofthanatos actually use it to mean phobos. Thus, if you want to use the otherwise important insights of these theorist, you end up using the word thanatos to mean phobos—as occasionally I did in Atman project. But so goes the promised semantic nightmare. (Wilber, 1983,p. 238)

It may first appear to the reader that Thanatos has received far more atten-tion than Phobos in this article. This is half true and half false. It is half true

16 And today, this is more complicated, because I am more interested in "Integral Theory" (a la Wilber and others) than transpersonal theory. The real question then is: What contribu-tion has (can) Integral Theory make on the nature and role of 'fear' (e.g., Phobos-Thanatos)?

26

26

in that discussions and quotes on Thanatos far exceed Phobos here, de-spite Wilber's claim that "phobos" plays a more decisive role in the psy-che's development than "thanatos." It is half false in that a good proportion of the discussions of Thanatos involve the rooting out of definitions, whereby "Thanatos" is actually Phobos, in a confused version of Freud's distinctions. "Fear of death" and/or "death denial" (Phobos) are the major aspects of Wilber's (1977/82, 1980/82, 1981) Atman project and spectrum of consciousness models, which form the foundation of his transpersonal theory [at least, in its early phases].

Wilber's Phobos

Phobos (actually with small letter "p") doesn't appear in Wilber's books until 1983 with ETE. Only one small reference is directed to "fear of death" (phobos). Most all of the information written about Phobos proper (as capi-talized) appears in 1995 with SES. By 1995, Phobos-Thanatos are intrinsi-cally linked in a Neoplatonic model of the Kosmos:

... when Eros and Agape are not integrated in the individual, thenEros appears as Phobos and Agape appears as Thanatos. (Wilber,1995, p. 339)

With the role of Wilber's latest Eros as that of "integration" and as one of the two patterns of 'Love,' it appears Phobos occurs as a "twisting" of Eros—and 'Love' turns to 'fear,':

... unintegrated [i.e., dissociated] Eros does not just reach up to the higher levels and transcend the lower; it alienates the lower, represses the lower—and does so out of fear (Phobos), fear the lower will 'drag it down'—always it is the fear that the lower will 'contaminateit,' 'dirty it,' 'pull it down.' Phobos is Eros in flight from the lower insteadof embracing the lower. Phobos is Ascent divorced from Descent. AndPhobos, we can see, is the ultimate force of all repression (a rancidtranscendence). Or, to say the same thing, Phobos is Eros withoutAgape (transcendence without embrace, negation without preserv-ation). And Phobos drives the mere Ascenders [Ego camp].... Phobosis the source of repression and dissociation. (Wilber, 1995, p. 340)[underline my emphasis] [brackets all original]

Phobos, Oppression & Liberation Theory

Clearly, Phobos, for Wilber, plays the most significant role in developmen-tal dynamics, as it is the very source of dissociation. I have argued earlier that dissociation, as distinct from differentiation, is likely the core phenome-non of all disruptive pathology in living systems—be it regression or repres-

27

27

sion, which I prefer to unify as two 'fear'-based dynamics under the concept of oppression.17

A transpersonal theory of oppression is critical to a socially-engaged spiri-tuality. Alschuler's (1982) paper is an important contribution towards bring-ing a theory of oppression and liberation under the lens of transpersonal theory (a la Jung). Alschuler found duality and dissociation to be funda-mental aspects of oppression. Wilber's transpersonal theory has yet been given its due in relation to oppression and liberation theory in a social jus-tice framework similar to Alschuler's study.

Therefore, 'fear' plays a very important and decisive role in development and evolution, including the pathological, destructive and oppressive side of growth. To date, Wilber has never said this about 'fear' directly. I believe it is very important to say directly so that human beings are not misdirected or distracted from the reality and interpenetration of 'fear' in the fabric of our daily lives. A 'fear'-based society is an oppressive society. Any libera-tion model will do well to examine this connection much closer, as was the case with the ground-breaking work on 'fear' and violence/oppression in Corradi et al., (1992), for example. Massumi et al. (1993) is another good resource on The Everyday Politics of Fear. The more abstract terms for 'fear' that Wilber and most developmental theorists and consciousness re-searchers use could very well be exactly how 'fear' stays in denial and in 'fear' itself.

Wilber (1995) connects the Phobos-driven motivation of the Eco "other-worldly" philosophers and believers with a "fear of earth, body, nature, woman, sex and sense)" (p. 350). The exclusive "Ascending program" leads to withdrawal from all attachments and form, with a resultant ascetic reactive againstness or disapproval of the lower18:

I believe it is a profound truth of human development that one can fullytranscend any level only if one fully honors it first (thus allowing embrace/Agape). Otherwise one's 'development' is simply a reaction to, areaction against [= 'fear'] the preceding level, and thus one remainsstuck to it with the energy of disapproval—Phobos, not Eros. (Wilber, 1995, p. 375) [ bracket all orginal]

17 [original] There are many different views on what exactly 'oppression' is. This is not the place to review that literature. Suffice it to say, for purposes of this paper, that oppression is any violence/hurting phenomenon. Dissociation and oppression are closely linked to 'fear' patterning (FPV+ in footnote 11). Oppression is the action of Phobos-Thanatos in a process of dissociation from Eros-Agape.18 Although there are many forms of this Ascender in our world, one I have been particu-larly concerned about in this regard of Phobos, is the expression found in nondualists and spiritualism with its developmental "spiritual bypassing" pathology (see Masters, 2010). See my re-configuration of the important role of nondual with integral (see Fisher, 2012).

28

28

Wilber draws a clear link between Phobos and oppression via the "whole dark side of the Enlightenment,":

Put a final way: it was reason shot through with Phobos.19 The greatEnlightenment rationality did not just transcend and include, and meet the world with an Agape to balance its Eros. Instead of embrace, therewas all too often a distancing gone mad, dis-engagement gone ex-treme, alienation and repression and dissociation—all out of an under-standable but ultimately insane aversion to anything that looked like'heteronomy' [communal at the expense of agency]. (Wilber, 1995, p. 442) [brackets all original]

Not just commendable Eros but a prickly Phobos was at work in the Ego's cherished autonomy, an autonomy and an agency that there-fore all too often severed its communions with nature, body, sensuality, community—and sent scattered fragments running to the winds where union and integration were supposed to be gloriously forthcoming. (Wilber, 1995, p. 442)

And Wilber pushes the point home that revolutions for autonomy and free-dom have their "fatal flaw" if 'fear' is lurking below as the motivating force,

... an arrogant holon usurps its place in the normal hierarchy, thusdominating/repressing those holons upon which its own existence intimately depends. Not holarchy, but pathological holarchy, with hyper-agency severing and dominating [oppressing] precisely because fearing—its communions: there was rationality run amok,and there was Phobos driving the repression... the repressive side of the Enlightenment, the tendency of monological reason to marginalize everything that is not of its ilk, Eros gone catastrophically into rampant Phobos—this cancer was eating its way into the Age of Reason [modernism] [referring to the "Reign of Terror" of the FrenchRevolution:] .... set Phobos loose with terror and retaliation in its hardened heart. (Wilber, 1995, p. 444) [brackets all original]

Phobos is less complicated and confused than Thanatos in Wilber's transpersonal theory. Phobos is more readily and obviously the force be-hind oppression (via dissociation and repression). Wilber's Thanatos is less easily seen as part of oppression dynamics, though I have offered some evidence in this paper that indicates Phobos and Thanatos are based on the same universal 'fear' patterning that goes with oppression. More in depth future studies of Wilber's 'fear' patterns will likely reveal these con-nections more directly.

19 In my recent writing I have been using the large concept (and critique) of "Cartesian anx-iety" for the Enlightenment Shadow (see Varela et al., 1992).

29

29

Utilizing Wilber's model, Francis Vaughan (1995), a transpersonal psy-chotherapist, argues that increased awareness of the transpersonal Self via therapeutic work and spiritual practice combined, may produce equa-nimity and liberation. She says, "This awakened state can bestow freedom from ['fear'] conditioning, freedom from fear, and freedom from uncon-scious conflicts" (p. 45). Wilber's most emphatic declaration of freedom from 'fear' as liberation in the "enlightened qualities of the Buddhas or Bod-hisattvas" came in his latest book EOS:

Perhaps you will arise as Bhaishajyaguru, whose ever-present awareness takes the form of a healing radiance.... With a simple touch or smile, contracted ['fear'-based] souls will relax into the vast expanse of intrinsic awareness, and disease will lose all meaning....And you will ... constantly remind all beings of who and what they really are, on the other side of fear, in the radical love and unflinchingacceptance that is the mirror-mind of ever-present awareness. (pp. 298-99) [brackets all original]

A Wilberian Kosmology (Phobos-Thanatos): No 'Fear'-One 'Fear'

Phobos' "flight from the lower" can now be connected with Wilber's phobos as "fear of death" in his earlier works. Both are 'fear' patterns. Though Wilber says little directly about Phobos proper, he implies that for con-sciousness to "regress" in a Thanatos movement backward down the spiral of the spectrum, brings up a lot of 'fear' of the new consciousness (self-sense) being absorbed in the earlier structures. This includes a 'fear' of be-ing hurt (enmeshed) in the pathology of the lower. This regress would seem to threaten the autonomy of the Eros movement up the spectrum to higher and deeper levels. The lower structures or levels represent more heteronomy—accenting qualities of communion (Agape) rather than agency (Eros).

Phobos and Thanatos are distinct 'fear' patterns on a continuum of patho-logical patterning. They are not separate entities. Each feeds the other be-coming the action of one 'fear'—'fear' itself, or what I call the 'fear' cycle. Figure 1 illustrates the basic relationship of 'Love' patterns to 'fear' patterns in Wilber's transpersonal theory. This diagram, the basis of my Uni-bicen-tric Theorem (Fisher, 1997b, 1997c), is derived from an interpretive synthe-sis of several of Wilber's diagrams including "The General Life Cycle" (1980/82) and "Involution and Evolution" (1981).

The Wilberian Kosmology (Figure 1) illustrates an ever-expanding spiral of growth and transcendence, which is the inherent human nature as a 'Love'-based centre (self). The ancient two paths of "Progress" (Eros) and "Re-

30

30

turn" (Agape) are two distinct 'Love'-based patterns on a continuum be-tween the two "Ground" sources of telos "pull." Each expanding spiral could represent one of Wilber's levels of consciousness. A complete pic-ture would show nine levels (spiral layers) from pleroma to Absolute, whereby the Ground of essence (Conscious) and form (Unconscious) ulti-mately become One.

31

31

So far, so good—distinction but no dissociation of self/Self (I/We). The "self" center is ever-expanding and connected via the vertical axis to Earth-Solar Self (a trinity pattern = Nature-Human-Divine). A Kosmology har-mony of differentiation and integration, of Agape and Eros doing what they are "designed" to do in the evolution of consciousness. This is a harmony (not without error and struggle) based on creative tensions and comple-mentary polarities or duality for sure.

However, in my own work, I distinguish the destructive and toxifying transi-tion when tensions become conflicts and complementary polarities and du-ality become dualism, i.e., when 'Love'-based patterns are "hijacked" (us-ing Wilber's descriptor) to 'fear'-based patterns (Phobos-Thanatos). This distinction or transition is shown in Figure 1 as two patterns of the 'fear' cy-cle (or "neurotic loop"). These loops may occur at any point along the ever-expanding spiral. They are 'fear'-based viral patterns (FPV+) that have be-come off-centered respective to the 'Love'-based ego and now operate "against" the Kosmic Law (2) of growth and transcendence (Wilber's, 1995, 20 tenets)—"against" the Kosmic Law (1) "if hurt, then heal" (Fisher, 1997b, 1997c).

Because a detailed Kosmology of Figure 1 is not the purpose of this paper, suffice it to say that Thanatos-Phobos ('fear') in Wilber's theory represents a "reverse-flow phenomenon" relative to Agape-Eros ('Love'). Clearly, with the dominating "drain" of the hijacking of these 'fear' patterns on the overall growth/transcendence, there is bound to be "problems" that are more than merely natural or 'normal' translative or complexity errors in the system. The very formative "blueprint" of Spirit is being "redrawn" by the very mechanism of evolution itself (rancid "Spirit")—albeit, a "twisted" and rebel-lious/arrogant version in the neurotic loops.

My own view, is that oppression/violence/hurting is at the core of this Twisted Rebel patterning of growth and development, which is dissociated pathology—which is Thanatos-Phobos (The 'Fear' Project). I believe this 'fear' patterning is controlled by human choices (the decision to choose 'fear' over 'Love,' or coping over healing, illhealth over health, oppression over liberation). The details I've elaborated elsewhere (Fisher, 1997b). The conclusion from Figure 1 is that there is no 'fear' in the Wilberian Kosmol-ogy inherently, and there is one 'fear' ('fear' itself) in the way human's are choosing to live.

Practical Applications & Further Questions

This pattern analysis of 'fear' itself, I believe challenges the approaches to 'fear' that focus on surface symptoms of 'x' or 'y' or 'z' "fears." A meta-the-ory of 'fear' takes the most embracing depth and height perspective of a

32

32

spectrum of 'fear.' Wilber's contribution to the foundations of a "new" inte-gral and transpersonal theory of 'fear' derive from his work on elaborating major conflicting (battles) patterns in the Kosmos. Thanatos-Phobos is one of Wilber's major contributions to a further study of 'fear' and the global problematique.

Answers to the "why" behind human choices is an eternal quest that started since the beginning of time, or at least the beginning of self-reflec-tive consciousness. Why humans have chosen a "self-destructive" (necrophilic) path as opposed to a biophilic path, remains a crucial ques-tion for transpersonal researchers and the public as a whole. 'Fear,' ac-cording to the results of my study of Wilber's work and others, is clearly heading for a total deconstruction and reconstruction. The role of 'fear' in development, evolution and history is undeniably critical and challenges us to further in depth research. I recommend 'fear' be given full-scale attention on educational, medical, psycho-social, spiritual and political agendas around the world before the year 2005.

From this study of Wilber's Thanatos and Phobos, several problematic ar-eas remain to be investigated, of which only a few can be mentioned in this limited space:

1) Thanatos remains a semantic nightmare of terms that have confused this author a few times. The continuum relationship of Thanatos and Pho-bos is therefore less clear in Wilber's model than would be ideal. Does Wilber's work support the notion of a no 'fear' and one 'fear' hypothesis, of which Thanatos and Phobos are two distinct patterns of pathology but one universal 'fear' pattern?

2) the "againstness" in this model seems to be dissociation, according to Wilber. Is this dissociation "natural" or "pathological" by nature and source? Is 'evil' the same phenomenon as dissociation or 'fear' and is it really "natu-ral" and inevitable, as Wilber's current dialectical Kosmology purports? What are the consequences of 'natural' and inevitable 'evil' as a "blueprint" of humanity's fate in regards to social movements with a vision of a liber-ated world free of 'violence' and 'fear'?

Wilber's "dialectic of progress" as foundational in his Kosmology of Eros-Agape vs. Phobos-Thanatos is by necessity forced to accept "good" and "evil" and yet, Wilber (1996) himself "transcends and includes" healthy du-ality and a dialectic in what I would call "transdialectic truth." On pp. 336-37, he repeats (nine times) "only by rejecting flatland," will there be libera-tion. "Rejecting" is hardly dialectical. Sustainable ethical practice, from a transpersonal level, seems to involve something more than a "dialectic of progress." I support Wilber in this assertion and swing of the 'sword' but more work is required to ferret out how Wilber's model is inconsistent and

33

33

contradictory in this regard. I see a strong existential pathological (almost "romantical") view of 'fear' lingering in Wilber's model and it may require modification, especially in light of the evidence of my spectrum theory of one 'fear' and Wilber's model of no 'fear.'

3) Wilber has often changed terms and conceptualization of what I see a the same basic 'fear' patterns ('negative' projects) throughout his writing career. Unfortunately, he has not described systematically for his readers the connections and reasons for changing his terms and arriving at Thanatos and Phobos in SES.

4) Why have admirers, critics and interpreters of Wilber's transpersonal theory neglected Thanatos and Phobos, as well as Wilber's earlier work on other concepts that outline a theory of 'fear'? Are we too afraid to face the 'fear' facts of the critical role 'fear' plays in development, evolution and his-tory?

References

Alschuler, L. R. (1992). Oppression and liberation: A psycho-political analysis according to Freire and Jung. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 32 (2), 8-31.

Anonymous (1997). Dr. Ellen Taliaferro's prescription to heal social ills. Soka Gakkai International Quarterly Magazine, 7, 6-7.

Assagioli, R. (1991). Transpersonal development: The dimension beyond psycho-synthesis. NY: Aquarian/Thorsons.

Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. NY: Free Press.Brown, N. O. (1959). Life against death. Middletwon, CN: Wesleyan University

Press. Corradi, J. E., Fagan, P. W., and M. A. Garreton (Eds.) (1992). Fear at the edge:

State terror and resistance in Latin America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Fisher, R. M. (1995). An introduction to defining 'fear': A spectrum approach. Technical Paper No. 1. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

Fisher, R. M. (1995a). An introduction to an epistemology of 'fear': A fearlessness context. Technical Paper No. 2. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

Fisher, R. M. (1997). A guide to Wilberland: Some common misunderstandings of the critics of Ken Wilber and his work on transpersonal theory prior to 1995. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 37(4), 30-72.

Fisher, R. M. (1997a). A research resource guide to Ken Wilber's critics. Technical Paper No. 5. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

Fisher, R. M. (1997b). The 'Fear' Project: A transpersonal view of health and lib-eration. Unpubl. ms.

Fisher, R. M. (1997c). Spectrum of 'fear'. Unpublished ms.

34

34

Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world's fearlessness teachings: A critical integral ap-proach to fear management/education for the 21st century. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Fisher, R. M. (2011). The flatland and fearlessness teachings of Ken Wilber. Yellowpaper DIFS-1. Carbondale, IL: Center for Spiritual Inquiry & Integral Education.

Fisher, R. M. (2012). Towards an integral fearlessness theory (Part 1): Nondual integralism. Technical Paper No. 41. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

Foundation for Inner Peace (1985). A course in miracles. Tiburon, CA: Foundation for Inner Peace.

Freud, S. (1940/64). An outline of psychoanalysis. SE23. London: Hogarth Press.Heron, J. (1992). Feeling and personhood: Psychology in a new key. London:

Sage. Krishnamurti, J. (1995). On fear. NY: HarperCollins.Marcuse, H. (1955). Eros and civilization. Boston, MA: Beacon. Maslow, A. (1966). The psychology of science. NY: Harper & Row. Massumi, B. (Ed.) (1993). The everyday politics of fear. Minneapolis, MN:

University of Minnesota Press. Masters, R. (2010). Spiritual bypassing: When spirituality disconnects us from

what really matters. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.McDonnell, T. P. (Ed.) (1974). A Thomas Merton reader (revised ed.). Garden

City, NY: Doubleday. Neumann, E. (1949/73). Depth psychology and a new ethic. NY: Harper & Row.Quigley, S. and Shroyer, M. (1996). Facing fear, finding courage: Your path to

peace of mind. Berkeley, CA: Conari Press. Rothberg, D. (1992). Buddhist responses to violence and war: Resources for a so

cially engaged spirituality. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 32(4), 41-75. Rowan, J. (1981). The ppsychology of science by Abraham Maslow: An apprecia-

tion. In P. Reason and J. Rowan (Eds.), Human inquiry: A source book of new paradigm research (pp. 83-91). NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Simpkinson, C. (1995). Kosmological therapist [Ken Wilber]. Common Boundary, May/June, 7.

Trungpa, C. (1985). Shambhala: Sacred path of the warrior. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Varela, F. J. , Thompson, E., and Rosch, E. (1992). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Vaughan, F. (1995). The inward arc: Healing in psychotherapy and spirituality. Nevada City, CA: Blue Dolphin.

Visser, F. (1996). Transpersonal psychology at a crossroad. (unpubl. paper submitted to Journal of Transpersonal Psychology).

Walsh, R. (1992). The search for synthesis: Transpersonal psychology and the meeting of East and West, psychology and religion, personal and transpersonal. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 32(1), 19-45.

Walsh, R., and Vaughan, F. (1994). The worldview of Ken Wilber. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 34(2), 6-21.

35

35

Wilber, K. (1977/82). Spectrum of consciousness. Wheaton, IL: The Theosophical Publishing House.

Wilber, K. (1980/82). The Atman project: A transpersonal view of human development. Wheaton, IL: The Theosophical Publishing House.

Wilber, K. (1981). Up from Eden: A transpersonal view of human evolution. NY: Anchor/Doubleday.

Wilber, K. (1983). Eye to eye: The quest for the new paradigm. Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday.

Wilber, K. (1983a). A sociable God: A brief introduction to a transcendental sociology. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Wilber, K. (1989). Two humanistic psychologies?: A response. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 29(2), 230-43.

Wilber, K. (1993). Paths beyond ego in the coming decades. In R. Walsh and F. Vaughan (Eds.), Paths beyond ego: The transpersonal vision (p. 256-66). Los Angeles, CA: J. P. Tarcher/Perigree.

Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology and spirituality: The spirit of evolution (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (1995a). The way up is the way down. Parabola: Myth, tradition and search for meaning, 21(1), 86-89.

Wilber, K. (1996). A brief history of everything. Boston, MA: Shambhala. Wilber, K. (1997). In the eye of the Spirit: An integral vision for a world gone

slightly made. Boston, MA: Shambhala. Zimmerman, M. (1994). Contesting Earth's future. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press. Zimmerman, M. (1996). A transpersonal diagnosis of the ecological crisis.

ReVision, 18(4), 38-48.

36

36