Fear in threshold states does not arise from what is happening, but from what has stopped happening. Familiar mechanisms withdraw, while no replacement structure has yet formed.
Humans are accustomed to being guided by reaction, motivation, or goals. When these forces recede, experience becomes difficult to orient. There are no clear signals confirming direction or progress.
The fear involved is rarely panic. It appears instead as low-level unease, a pull toward familiar patterns, or an urge to fill the gap with habitual action.
Threshold Phenomena expose a fundamental limitation of habitual systems. These systems rely on continuity. When continuity is interrupted, the sense of control diminishes.
This leads threshold states to be interpreted negatively. Not because they cause harm, but because they reveal the system’s reduced ability to direct process as it once did.
Another contributing factor is the absence of reference points. In earlier phases, individuals can compare, measure, or align experience with familiar benchmarks. At the threshold, those references lose relevance.
There is no clear metric confirming the legitimacy of the state. Ambiguity is easily translated into perceived error or risk.
In response, systems often attempt to reactivate previous drivers. This restores temporary familiarity, but it also pulls the system away from the threshold before reorganization can complete.
Threshold Phenomena do not require confronting fear in a psychological sense. What matters is recognizing fear as a systemic response to the loss of familiar anchors.
When fear is understood as an operational signal rather than a danger warning, the threshold becomes less adversarial. The system gains space to remain still without rushing toward resolution.