I see the world through the lens of self protection - which implies constant fear.
I am the necessary basis for fear. Fear is my reason for existing. The movement of fear is me.
The me = identification with a center for survival purposes (which is fear).
However circumstances change regularly - so there is a difference in intensity, I do not always feel the same way as when bungee jumping or watching a horror movie. Sometimes I am having a nap, or eating an ice cream.
We associate high intensity self with fear : panic, terror, alarm. But there is also medium intensity experience of self : anxiety, worry, timidity. Low level, resting level.
But maybe the hardest to recognise as fear are what are seen as positive experiences : attraction to a mate, effort and pleasure of accumulation, relief when feeling safe & secure, happiness when with the tribe/family etcâŚ
We are used to using the word fear to point at certain emotional states - but there is also the understanding of what fear is - how it works, what it means, not just what the word symbolises for communication purposes.
Iâve already given my definition (in fact it might be your definition, since you provided all the necessary info) : âthe identification with a center for survival purposesâ (aka self)
Either this is not clear, or it contains an error of some sort - in which case it needs adressing.
Or you would like to offer an alternative (better/more insightful?) definition?
Very simply, isnât it any concern about the future? Whether it is the fear of pain or the fear of the denial of pleasure, it seems that time must always be involved.
Well concern is a synonym for fear, so describing fear as a concern about the future is like saying fear is a fear about the future, which is a circular argument.
But you bring up a good point: Does fear always involve the future?
One could argue immediate danger results in fear of the present, not future.
What about fear of the past? When you are haunted by something from your past, is this fear of the past, present, or future?
Does having nothing to fear necessarily mean not experiencing fear? Or can one be afraid of nothing, what psychologists sometimes call free-floating anxiety?
Does it? Immediate danger brings immediate action. Fear only comes in when there is a gap between the two, which means the danger is in the future. When you are faced with immediate danger, there is no time for fear.
FDR famously said, âWe have nothing to fear but fear itselfâ, to which I say, âWe have nothing to fear until we think of somethingâ. Think about it.
I donât think thatâs entirely accurate. (Emphasis on the âthink,â Iâm not a neuroscientist!) Say youâre taking a walk alone at night and you hear footsteps and become afraid that someone is following you. Once the fear has kicked in, it stays in, though if action is required, running away for example, the fear probably moves to the background until the danger is over, at which point it is free to jump back into the foreground.
So I agree, if you are faced with immediate danger and take action to end the danger, fear probably moves to the background. But I donât think it disappears. It helps fuel the action, and the neurochemicals that spill into the bloodstream when fear is triggered have a life of their own, they require however many minutes to complete their process.
It is very difficult to define fear. Of course one can always define it in the dictionary sense. But I assume thatâs not the point of the discussion. Itâs even more difficult to define self and I am not able to do it.
Although difficult to define without expanding it or shrinking it to meaninglessness all of us know very well what the feeling of fear is irrespective of cause. Discussing the causes (which seem endless and which I suppose the
shrinks do) also seems futile but maybe very interesting.
I find that this feeling of fear I have has a strong physical component, often, perhaps always, unpleasant.