But for Fear, I Would Be Lost

A friend has loaned me a book. Common enough occurrence. I was skeptical from the start, but she told me it was good: Conversations with God. I accepted it because I think it’s often prudent to withhold judgment on things I’ve not tried. I took the book home. Actually opening it to begin reading took quite a long time. I am glad I did, though.

No, I do not like the book at all–its didacticism tired me and the simplistic formula of continually repeating, “no, I don’t follow you,” or “say that again?” was tiresome. Then in the first twenty pages it hit upon something, a big something, a powerful something. Neale Donald Walsch postulates that everything that motivates human kind stems from one of two emotions and only one. These two that he puts forth are love and fear. He holds them up as opposites, a duality, poles not on a continuum, but absolutes, for the so-called “Sponsoring Thought” of any emotion can have root in only one of these. He says that “fear-based love” is rooted in a lie, and that fear “contracts, closes down, draws in, runs, hides, hoards harms.” he says of love that it “expands, opens up, sends out, stays, reveals, shares, heals.” Opposites in every way. Is it all rooted in love or fear? Does he mean for me to believe that righteous indignation has its root in love, and anger over abandonment in fear? Anger has but two flavors? Or is it that there is no such thing as anger at all and one only experiences it as an outgrowth of fear be cause it’s a “negative” emotion?

What then, I wonder, is awe? In this model there is no space for the sheer terror, smallness, wonderment and joy that is wrapped up in this sensation. There is no room in this schematic to encompass all the strange whorls of emotion, everything from dread to hope that can be swept up in standing before a thing so much greater, older, wiser, deeper, stranger than oneself. What was it I felt before the great Triceratops in the hall of the Smithsonian, I tiny and trembling, shaken to the core and crying like a child, voices echoing through my very bones? These experiences had root in neither fear nor love. They were of awe. And I would say hope has no place in his diagram, nor curiosity, glee, selfishness, a sense of ease, anger, or peace. These are all emotions in the human scope. We feel moved by things sometimes for which we have no name. To call them all fear or love narrows the breadth and glory of joys, shames us for our pain and misery, blames the victim of poverty for their own aching. No.

And of fear alone? Fear can, yes, make one shrink, draw inward and hide. Fear also shows us where the boundaries are. Fear can dare us to test them, fear can keep us safe. And while I do not agree with everything she has written, Starhawk does say this well: “where there’s fear, there’s power.” In the roiling pit of fear lies the well of transformation.

As for the book? Though I am not enjoying it for its own sake, I will continue to read. I have learned the hard way not to discount lessons wrapped in contrary packages. This lesson learned, however, is one which must often be repeated.

5 thoughts on “But for Fear, I Would Be Lost”

  1. It is common practice of those who consider themselves philosophers to try to shrink the whole of human experience into something simpler, more compact, more conceivable. They all fail.


  2. There are many interesting thoughts in the book, different ways of looking at or phrasing things. And many reasons to like a book. Agreeing with everything that the book says is not a great reason to like it; triggering lots of discussion and provoking thoughts are. A book that dares to be different, bold, and present things in a not unique but new to me way? Yep… I liked the book.

    A woman I worked with once told me that Anger = Fear. For the most part I agree with her. Anger is usually based in fear. Not always. I haven’t found a situation for myself where it wasn’t, but I can’t make a blanket statement about that since I’m not experiencing things in any body but my own. But yes, for me, anger usually equals fear.

    Anyway… share more thoughts on the book if you will.


  3. Often the point is to oversimplify things just so that people can argue “what about…?”. It’s not *always* (can’t speak about this author), or even I’d argue, usually the point of polemics to actually think it’s a realistic explanation of reality. It’s to spark the conversations and arguments.

    Anyway, your feelings (not your reactions/thoughts about what it’s saying, but your more gut feelings) for this book remind me an awful lot of how I felt about the book you bought me 😉


  4. Really? There have been time with that book–the one I got for you, Dragan– I’ve rolled my eyes, but still found valuable things in it. I’ve even argued aloud with it, like I do with TV. It’s kind of neat to know your feelings about it. Thank you.


  5. If there was a point I agreed with in that book I honestly couldn’t tell you if I could find it. In addition to finding <>extremely<> condescending, it also made a lot of assumptions about its readers and those the authors think may not agree with it and why they wouldn’t agree with it, and most presumptuously, their mental state and emotional maturity. It was in great need of a better editing process.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s