SPONSORS

 

The Tim Gerchmez Letters

Gene Poole


What comes to mind, is that one who is branded as 'out-tribe', lives on the
periphery, always looking in and longing to be included in the tribe.

I must remember, however, that the banishment of one is actually the
banishment of all; which 'group' is actually 'cast out'?

A mere majority never makes 'right', and being in a minority does not
guarantee 'wrong'.

That being said, I have a sense that if and when one such 'singleton' shows
up, that we are already sensing the 'out-tribe' status of that one; indeed,
such an outcast, carries their banishment as a creed, while always hoping
for a miracle of reversal of the situation. I am reminded of the 'hippies'
who became 'yuppies', and henceforth quit blaming 'the establishment' as
soon as they were accepted back into the tribe that they had rebelled
against.

What is going on here, as I have seen, is a direct emanation of 'family
enmeshment', of 'co-dependence'; who is 'family' and who is 'not-family' is
decided by the Great Father, the OverLord Patriarch. It is natural for an
outcast from the family, to proclaim themself to be The Father, and so then
to rank and punish other 'family members'. Again, this theme has been
consistantly seen by me in my observing and dealing with 'chronic
outsiders' or the 'singleton'.

To be a 'singleton' is seemingly punishment in itself; but please consider
this. If one is an outcast by choice, by acceptance, by habit, if one
actually lives that life, I say that the outcast is an outcast because the
'main culture' is too toxic for them to bear. It is granted that such
outcasts 'act out' the misuse of authority that originally wounded
themselves; and that they thus project this 'authoritarian wounding' upon
those who seem unwilling to allow them to be The Father.

Nobody wants to live under the thumb of an authoritarian, toxic rulership;
if such a rulership has wounded one, one then inevitably 'acts out' their
pain and grief by the same methodology of the original wounder, the Great
Father.

Many people seek a 'Non-Toxic Great Father", and never suceed in finding
one; this failure to find the 'perfect master' is not the failing of any
master, but is instead based upon the assumption that such a Being exists.
The search is doomed from the beginning, leaving one alone to contemplate
what may one day become a wordless acceptance of oneself as the basis of
what is.

How is it, that one has this vision, this assumption, of one who is so
perfect and good? I propose this to consider; that one who has been
_controlled through threat of banishment_, is one who has the idea that
there is someone 'better' than themself, and thus is birthed the model of
the 'perfect master'. Yes, the 'perfect master' is (an unknown) who is
'better than me'. One who has been traumatically criticised for not being
'good enough' is one who seeks that one who is 'better'. And it is now a
cliche, that one who seeks one who is better, eventually finds that one as
themself. It all fits together, it is all one big picture, and we can see
it if we momentarily abondon momentum and abide for a while.

The more fiercely one who is an outcast is engaged in attacking, the
quicker they will expend their own resources, and find that the battle is
moot; such a one will find themself embarassed to be seen shadow-boxing,
self-hypnotized into a fury of blaming and scapegoating. This being so, is
it compassion to engage the attacker in such a way that their own momentum
toward their own direction is unimpeded, if not gracefully accellerated,
such as in Aikido. The 'final lesson' can happen in an instant, relieving
the 'attacker' of the burden of further attacking behaviour. In this
regard, 'mastery' is both yielding and guiding, bringing the one who is
moving into conscious awareness of their own momentum and direction. It is
at this point that the aggressor realizes that their momentum and direction
are a 'bad fit'; one or the other must be immediatly neutralized in order
to survive. When this is seen, a person may either slow down, stop, or
change directions, or any combination of these modifications. It is a gift
to me, when someone has skillfully done this to me. It is humiliating, but
I acknowledge that there are beings wiser than me, more powerful than I am,
and with more experience as well.

I will say as well, that there is probably no virtue in 'defending against'
such an attacker; I suggest that the use of conscious symbiosis will absorb
the 'outcast' into the extant 'tribe' or family or community. However, such
acceptance or incorporation of a wounded one, brings also the pain of that
wounding. Such pain, acted-out reactively, tends to set off reverberating
'echos' of that pain. Such pain, when shared, also elicits every 'version'
of advice, as well as every sort of imagined 'band-aid' and other 'fixes'
for that pain. The existential pain of Being has no remedy; if toxic
history can be sacrificed (eaten and digested, a 'living sacrifice'), this
exquisite pain, which has given license to so many martyred idealists, will
be interpreted instead as vast pleasure, called 'bliss'.

To eat one's 'toxic history' is to incorporate into oneself, that which has
been rejected/divorced/abondoned. It is properly used as fuel, to fire the
furnace of life. As such toxic material is consumed by the flames of
metabolism, the energy produced fuels a further growth _out_ of the
'lifestyle' of suffering. Finally, one must acknowledge that they have been
attached to their suffering, as embodied justification for 'seeking
justice' and 'telling truth' to 'masses of ignorant unbelievers'. It is
those very 'masses' who comprise the 'tribe' to which the 'outsider' is
preaching, and thus is attempting to lead.

One of the problems with these 'spiritually-oriented' lists, is the
(usually) heavy overlay of 'what is correct' versus 'what is incorrect',
also seen as 'getting it' versus 'not getting it' or 'being a mile off the
mark'. While some people are having fun, patiently playing with others,
the diehard idealists among us insist that there is 'only one way' and
'only one appropriate language' in which that 'way' should be expressed.
This behaviour is pretty much a constant, because it reflects the
assumptions of the 'seeker', that there is something to 'seek' or to 'get',
and that there is thus a 'proper way to seek' or get.

All such practices are by nature _exclusive_ IE exclusionary, and thus are
a 'red flag', waving in the face of one who has been living life in
'exile'. Do you get this point? Exclusive behaviour has become toxic to one
who has _already_ been excluded and lives as a 'singleton' as a result.
Such a one, will 'punish' by exerting this very 'excluding' behaviour upon
those who are 'guilty' of exclusion. This is a constant
fissioning/splitting/fractioning which can only result in 'the smallest
particle and then nothing'.

It is almost impossible to establish clear, productive communication
between the 'seeker' and the other; the 'seeker' tends to be an idealist,
who sees the 'nonseeking behaviour' of the other, as a flaw of character,
an error of mind, or an emantion of some other ghastly deficiency. We may
refer to the seeker as being 'hungry' for what they have been punished into
leaving behind. Nobody can give this to anyone, each must find what they
have 'excluded' and make their peace with each disparate particle. This
goes for relationship between persons, as well as for 'particles of self'
which have been judged and rejected.

We should also be aware that language, as it is usually used in speech and
thought, is based upon grammatical 'filters' which exclude objects and
catagories of objects in order to create catagories and thus identify
objects. Our language 'automatically' 'singles out' (objectifies) each
thing to be defined, and is thus usually exclusive/exclusionary in
execution; for example, 'nonduality' defines only duality, and in that
definition, by describing (the nondual) by defining it as what _it is not_,
sets us up to follow the path of 'not this, not that', which itself leads
to 'me' as the 'realizer', but wastes time and creates a lot of smoke and
engenders bushels of false assumptions along the way. It is no wonder that
an intelligent person can see this, and thus feel perhaps justified in
criticising 'it', even going so far as to assert that 'if it cannot be
described, it cannot be'. In fact, if I state that "there is something that
is indefinable", it is inevitable that someone will demand that I tell them
'what it is'. Our language does not entertain secrets.

I would venture to say, that a majority of those who subscribe to these
lists, have been through a long ordeal of rejection and of being
misunderstood by others. Seeking and finding 'truth' is thus a priority, as
is being acknowledged as 'living in that truth'. Such a defined one is
defined as 'good', and is thus now 'in-tribe', as defined by others and as
understood by the standards of standard language. That someone would be
able to see right through this little ritual of 'symbolic inclusion' is not
too astonishing to me. But this is not to say that we have nothing
worthwhile to say; indeed, we all long to be free of the flypaper of what
'ego' sticks to, and to be able to fly free, and to also be seen by our
peers (tribe and family) as being free.

If then, anyone says to someone, "you are not free", that is the ultimate
insult and perhaps also the ultimate challenge; in reacting to that
challenge, the impulse to _destroy_ the one who insults, may indeed arise.
Again, this is all, in my opinion, a matter of _family_ and tribal
affilliation. It is about who is 'Big Father' and who is at the bottom of
the veritable totem-pole.
Because this is so, we all respond in our own 'family way'. It is not
unusual to see the varieties of 'family way' displayed as _punishment,
banishment, mockery, shaming_, etc... as well as the varieties of 'love'
which are anything but love. I think you know what I am pointing out here,
yes?

And then there are those who, reading this long and elaborate posting, will
say that all such considerations are properly subsumed by some greater
principle of wisdom; while such is true, it is equally true that what I
have said, can be said, and may be of some use to someone, at some time.


Greetings, Tim. Thank you for replying. My comments below...

> Dear Gene,
>
> At 03:43 PM 3/25/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >To be a 'singleton' is seemingly punishment in itself; but please consider
> >this. If one is an outcast by choice, by acceptance, by habit, if one
> >actually lives that life, I say that the outcast is an outcast because the
> >'main culture' is too toxic for them to bear. It is granted that such
> >outcasts 'act out' the misuse of authority that originally wounded
> >themselves; and that they thus project this 'authoritarian wounding' upon
> >those who seem unwilling to allow them to be The Father.
>
> I bow to you for your Divine Intuition (which approaches mind-reading in
> its clarity of perception). I was raised in an authoritarian environment,
> with a domineering and egocentric father (a former officer in the Turkish
> military), who never allowed any of his children to be who they were. His
> dominance, fear, anxiety and own insecurity was so great that he allowed
> nobody else in the family an ego, nor any "boundaries" of their own. If I
> recall correctly, I wasn't even allowed to walk across the street by myself
> until age 10 or so. The mother "went along with" the father, and was
> constantly caught in the middle of "power struggles" between myself and my
> father.

I am "familiar" with what you describe above, as a broad facet of my own
'personal history'. I have lived the destructive effects I (and you)
describe. It is not difficult for me to 'know' that one is wounded; I have
the 'identical wound'. My heart, which I am learning to trust, still
upheaves at the unthinking abuse which I see going on in 'the world'.

I have also 'seen' (in the past few years... I am now 51, yesterday was my
birthday) that I have somehow been a 'party' to the creation of 'all of
this'. Since I have gotten this insight (which I really cannot explain), I
have found that I can practice 'creative non-creation', IE, I practice what
I call 'abiding', which I define as the deliberate cessation of reaction.

This what I describe as 'non-reaction' has been a daring experiment; I
allow (yes, allow) the world to 'go on', watching my own impulse of
'aversion' and quenching it as it arises. I treat my impulse of 'desire'
the same way. Understand that I fully acknowledge that there are may 'bad
things' going on in this apparent 'world', yet, I choose (usually) to allow
what is apparently 'going on' to continue. This is the crucial part; I find
that my daring experiment has 'paid off' in the following way...

I have realised that I am 'creating' and 'recreating', and that I have no
idea of how this all began. The closest 'match' that I have found, exists
as the Tibetan Buddhist conception of 'Karma' and 'samskara'; I have used
these concepts to formulate my own 'version' of how this works. Apparently,
I have 'created' all of this, including my own perceived 'victimizers'; it
is now my task to 'stop creating them'. Have they been 'real' the whole
time? Apparently, yes.

In my own personal life, as I practiced the above, I have had my 'apparent
victimizers' come to me to apologize to me, to ask my forgiveness, and to
express the desire to be my friend. I stress that this has happened only
since I have discovered 'non-reaction/abiding' as a way of 'stopping the
recreation' of what I have experienced as a 'bad world'. Has it been bad?
Yes it has. Very bad, at times.

I do not know how it is that I have 'come into all of this heavy karma',
but I find that now, since I have been practicing (with difficulty)
'abiding', that things are easing. Not only that, but I am getting what I
want, IE, friends, and the 'stuff' that I have always wanted. It has not
been easy, but I am experiencing a 'taste of Grace', which indeed seems to
re-enforce my decision to 'abide' in the face of what appears to be a
'toxic world'. The key for me seems to be to cease the automatic, reactive
'recreation' of what has been so bad for me in the past. In the midst of
all of this, I have discovered my own 'power of creation', which I have
labeled as the 'Highest Siddhe'. It is really _wierd_ that in all of the
so-called 'spiritual literature' and preaching that I have been exposed to,
that _nobody_ had mentioned that we are born with this 'Highest Siddhe',
the power of creation _itself_, fully operational! Good grief! If I had
only known this 'earlier', what lot of pain I could have avoided, yes?

Somehow, the pain and agony of my 'historical life' has led me to this
understanding, that I am creating. You can believe that I am very humbly
retreating into careful consideration of just what I allow myself to create
(or recreate).

> >Nobody wants to live under the thumb of an authoritarian, toxic rulership;
> >if such a rulership has wounded one, one then inevitably 'acts out' their
> >pain and grief by the same methodology of the original wounder, the Great
> >Father.
>
> Most perceptive.

Thank you.

> >To eat one's 'toxic history' is to incorporate into oneself, that which has
> >been rejected/divorced/abondoned. It is properly used as fuel, to fire the
> >furnace of life. As such toxic material is consumed by the flames of
> >metabolism, the energy produced fuels a further growth _out_ of the
> >'lifestyle' of suffering.
>
> I bow before you again, Gene. You are one of the wisest human beings I've
> ever encountered.

I now state here, what I have said only to myself so far, in this
'chronicle of transformation'; I applaud your courage, Tim, and I see and
know just how hard it is to 'show up' as someone who is 'apprently
dysfuntional', again and again, without much or any understanding
manifesting from 'others'. To show up anywhere, to be 'naked' and to
somehow invite the 'cleansing whiplash' of the 'majority culture', is to
(in both real and metaphorical sense) avoid the "reward" of hiding behind a
pretend 'personality'.

I myself am a raw, open Being, entirely improper most of the time, by the
judgement of many who 'know me'. But some of those, have as I have said,
seen that I am growing in my own way, and have even expressed their
admiration. But what seems to escape 'them' is that I have had the 'gonzo
courage' to be myself, and to let the 'chips' fall where they may. It was
only after this (prolonged) episode of 'letting it all hang out' that I
discovered the 'principle' of 'abiding' and 'creative non-creation', of
'letting it be'. I thank those in my llife who have themselves 'abided' ME,
in all of my fury of reactive folly. Those ones, the tolerant ones, have
abided my arising out of the 'realm of terror' into this new (to me) realm
of 'bliss'. Please know, however, that I have not forgotten just how
hellish it has been, and how hellish it can be. I am very grateful (always)
for this, my life, and for whatever crumbs of 'wisdom' that I have been
fortunate to 'find'.

> >I would venture to say, that a majority of those who subscribe to these
> >lists, have been through a long ordeal of rejection and of being
> >misunderstood by others. Seeking and finding 'truth' is thus a priority, as
> >is being acknowledged as 'living in that truth'.
>
> My priority is BECOMING Truth through knowledge that I already am thus.
> Along with this comes renunciation of falsehood, of course.

Of course. I cannot argue wth this. As you know, for some of 'us' it is a
long and potentially exhausting struggle. That some may appear to have a
'greater facility for grace' should not shame anyone into giving up on the
goal of Being themself. One who has clawed their way out of prison, may
appear bloody and dishevelled; but freedom is what counts, not a momentary
appearance as a stressed-out Being.

> Gene, this was one of the most impressive posts I've ever seen on any
> mailing list. My bhakta for today goes to You. I love you.
>
> Tim

Thank you, Tim.

You may be interested to know that I perceive you as a 'cast-out particle
of myself' (so to speak). I have nothing to lose, and everything to gain,
by re-incorporating 'you' back into myself. This 'acceptance' is the
acceptance of my own _wholeness_. Thus, I need you. I am glad that you have
persisted in showing yourself, and again, congratulate you on your humility
in doing so, though I know it has seemed otherwise at times.

Abiding... can be impossibly difficult at times.

Having compassion for myself, in my difficulties,

Your 'brother' Being...

==Gene Poole==

"Community is the sharing of the burden of personality"

GENE POOLE'S HOME PAGE