Burnt Toast: Part 2

Continuing the discussion from Burnt Toast: That's that Sh* I don't like!:

It would appear that there’s been a misunderstanding, and I’ve some time and inclination to sort it out.

Please note that my comments stem from what was said regarding perfection, which was attributed not just to being alive, but to every thing in existence. It’s patently clear that although “cold, charred-black toast” might be regarded, for many, as a dismal thing when measured on a relative scale, in an ultimate sense, it is perfect. Richard underscored that point adding that “everything”—as in, all things—is perfect. Given that there is nothing—not one thing—out there that is not perfect, then it follows that each and every so-called “abbhorent” thing is not ultimately or truly abbhorent after all, only relatively so. In fact, every relatively abbhorent thing, which includes items like rape, war, murder, taxes, famine, floods, hurricanes, taxes, earthquakes, disease, taxes, black toast, and so on, are ultimately and absolutely perfect as-they-are. Are they not? Now, as to be perfect is to be peerless, pristine, faultless, flawless, impeccable, immaculate, and so on, then “how else” besides enjoyment and appreciation, I asked in my little :notes: jingle :notes:, would one experience those things? In fact, it would be unnatural and unreasonable to not like, enjoy, and appreciate something—anything—that was truly perfect, regardless of how cold, charred, and black it was.

Now, to your point regarding a “common misconception,” I’m aware of the distinction between enjoying and appreciating things and enjoying and appreciating being alive. To be alive is, in short, to be aware that things exist. This awareness or consciousness of things happens to also be a thing, yes, a rather miraculous thing when you think about it, actually, and it’s easy to see how it could be one of those things which one manages to, on occasion, enjoy and appreciate in that relative sense alluded to earlier. Harder—though not impossible—is it to conceive the prospect of enjoying and appreciating such a thing all-day, everyday, without stop, when not seen in that ultimate sense. Let’s face it, the flavor of being alive can vary somewhat. It can be sweet one day and bitter the next. Even if it were like a mass-produced Nabisco pastry, consistent always in its quality and availability—which in some respects that is the case—one’s appetite would still be liable to waver. Heaven knows I enjoy an Oreo from time to time as much as the next kid, but, personally speaking, if I were forced to continually consume it conveyer-belt style, then unlike how it was for Homer J., the initial appeal after awhile could take a bit of a dip.


Life, surely, happens to be one of those things that we are “forced” to consume via conveyer belt, loosely-speaking because there’s always the option to hit the kill-switch, which many do when they can’t stomach any more. Most of course do manage to stomach it, to ride it out, which is to say that they endure it, but that’s different from enjoying it. On the other hand, there are accounts of remarkable individuals who don’t merely stomach life, but relish each morsel and moment of it, providing a reason to be optimistic that others can do the same.

So it is that, depending on one’s predilection and how the cosmic cards are getting dealt, “being alive,” like anything else this universe produces, could be either pleasant or abbhorent when measured on that relative scale. However, it is in the ultimate sense, and only in that ultimate sense, that life—and all things—can be experienced as inexorably perfect and irreproachable, and, consequently, enjoyed and appreciated (beyond the relative and unreliable sense). Happiness is the inescapable consequence of perfection.

RICHARD: As simply as possible, then: it is impossible to be miserable (or in any other way infelicitous) where the pristine purity of the perfection of the infinitude/ absoluteness which this universe actually is abounds … to wit: here in this actual (the world of the senses). [emphasis added]

Accordingly, “where”-ever or whenever that perfection of infinitude is, to whatever degree, neither fully experienced or seen, misery in some form there will occasion to be. The relevance that has for an affective being, who has some capacity to form a connection with perfection, seems significant.

After all the above, and bearing in mind the distinction between the relative and ultimate nature of every thing, do you still think so?

He has remarked on a few occasions that he likes all (presumably flesh and blood) human beings in existence “no matter what mischief they get up to.” Do you think that, with all the mischief they get up to, his active like for human beings cannot extend to mosquitoes too? Especially since mosquitoes are, according to an estimate I made up, 15% less mischievous than human beings.

Think back to your PCEs, was not every thing impeccable and immaculate, in its proper place and exactly where it was supposed to be, and every event faultless and flawless, happening exactly as it needed to happen?

Do you see it now?

Why indeed. The ability to “improve” upon perfection relates to the “bonus” business, which is possible when the immediate is the ultimate, and where the relative is the absolute. Inspiring! :stars:

[Richard]: Doing something – and that includes thinking – is a bonus on top of this never-ending ambrosial perfection of the eternal infinity of this material universe … which infinitude is already always here.

1 Like

Well it didn’t take long to find this, perhaps it will settle it for you :slight_smile:

Okay. Perfection in what sense? Relative/local or ultimate/universal/absolute?

Here’s one saying the opposite.

[Richard]: It was manifestly clear how nothing was ever amiss – in a universal sense – whilst this paradise was apparent; everything was clean and pure; flawless and faultless; spotless and blameless; impeccable and unimpeachable.

Domestic violence, child abuse, suicide, and murder are in fact “things” and thus fall under the rubric of “everything.” (Nevermind grief, sadness, and loneliness, as I take it you don’t regard those as things.)

We could lob (seemingly) conflicting and contradictory quotes at each other all day, but what would that demonstrate? If the quote you submitted settled the matter for you, then cheers. :clinking_glasses:

There was nothing to settle on my end, by the way.

My recollection of the PCE indicates its an experiential perfection. It’s packaged into how one is experiencing being conscious sans identity. It’s not conditional like domestic violence, child abuse, etc & has nothing to do with events.

Everything is in it’s place because there’s no you to feel a certain way about it.


This is a logical conclusion that nevertheless isn’t sensible.

Domestic violence, child abuse, suicide, and murder are not clean, pure, flawless, faultless, spotless, blameless, impeccable, unimpeachable, and indicative of paradise.

The actualism method is not to change yourself such that you enjoy these things. I in fact very strongly recommend against going down that path, for what should be obvious reasons!

Just because the actual universe is perfect, flawless, without peer, and intrinsically benevolent, doesn’t mean that, say, a spouse physically abusing their partner is that benevolence in action. In fact it is the opposite, it is a rotten-to-the-core feeling-being maliciously directing the flesh-and-blood-body they are parasitically inhabiting to do senseless and needless harm upon their fellow human being.

Making logical arguments that justify it and turn it into something that is also benevolent, will simply not deliver the goods that you are looking for!

I would focus, rather than on enjoying things like child abuse, suicide, and murder, on enjoying being alive despite things like child abuse, suicide, and murder happening. It is indeed wonderful and remarkable that one can do this despite the fact of such horrible things happening.

Rather than getting yourself to be able to enjoy these types of things, I would focus on being harmless, yourself, such that you don’t contribute, either directly or indirectly/passively, to the continuation of these horrible things – along with the host of things that are not quite so horrible but still negative, like domestic squabbles and disputes and even annoyance and peevishness.

This will then properly set you on the path towards actuality, towards excellence experiences, intimacy experiences, and pure consciousness experiences, from which vantage point you can reflect on these topics further and see if and how your appreciation of these matters changes.


1 Like

None of those are actual?

:100: And to make it even more robust, you can feel good not just despite these things but, in a way, because of them. Not because you enjoy or approve of them (as a sadist or masochist), and not because you believe that they’re perfect manifestations of some overall beneficent system (divine or not), but because you’ve understood that feeling good (happy, harmless) is the best way to solve these problems as a feeling being. Other feeling responses, like anger, sadness or compassion, ultimately don’t. They only perpetuate or even amplify the problem.

It can be a powerful motive to feel good (happy and harmless), knowing that it’s the best way to fix these rotten problems while you’re still a feeling being, starting in the only place you can start, in yourself.

It’s no different from what Claudiu is saying, but it might have a psychological difference for you, as it does for me. If the idea of feeling good despite all this horrible stuff makes your well-being feel defensive, passive, fragile, vulnerable, always under siege from reality, and perhaps even morally wrong, then choosing to feel good because of it (in terms above) might make it feel more robust and active. It’s a step closer to freedom from the root causes.


Paul, are you trying to say that war, rape, and charred-black toast aren’t actual?

Because it’s almost sounding like you’re saying that the actual world isn’t perfect.

@rick , no, I just wanted to share some thoughts on how to feel good in a world where terrible things can/do/will happen. It has been a practical challenge for me, and this is where I’ve landed.

I understand that you’re interested in how a perfect actual universe, if it’s all that actually exists, can ever produce anything that isn’t actual and perfect. I get it, and it’s interesting in a way.

I can’t resolve it in a philosophically airtight way. For me, it’s enough to stick with the practical truth that malice exists in/as ‘me’, sorrow exists in/as ‘me’, without ‘me’ (and others like ‘me’) there is no such thing, and ‘I’ am the only one who can do anything about it.


Hmm… my response will be to say that you can’t logic or philosophize your way into EEs, PCEs, and eventually, actual freedom.

In fact, rather than merely recommending against changing yourself into a person that enjoys domestic violence, child abuse, suicide, murder, etc. – which would be an abhorrent type of person – I’d further recommend the exact opposite.

Allow yourself to fully, without any amelioration or turning-away from it, appreciate just how terrible domestic violence, child abuse, suicide, murder, war, rape, torture, etc., all are. Allow that to sink in viscerally, until you cannot turn away from it anymore. Allow it to sink in just how absurd it is that these things are happening, given we are all fellow human being living in a literal paradise. Allow yourself to see what is the actual root cause of all that – ‘you’ at the core of ‘your’ being .

Then, perhaps, you will no longer be satisfied at the level you are at, where “if it[(i.e. your current level of energy, being, vitality, commitment, devotion, dedication, intention)]'s not enough to get the job done then the job just don’t get done is all.” [1], and you will find yourself already/automatically with more of that which you previously already thought was “always all-the-time 24/7/365 […] giving every last drop” [1:1].

And then “the odds” [2] that you succeed will be (potentially much) higher than before!


  1. ↩︎ ↩︎
  2. ↩︎
1 Like

You sidestepped the question.

Which is fine, you’re free to do as you wish. As I already know the answer, it was more for your edification than anything else.

I’m losing the inclination to continue pointing out the obvious.

Have a good day.

The way forward for you is contained in what I’ve written on the topic here.

You’ve built a self-limiting philosophy around this topic, that is not conducive to the aims of actualism.

Perhaps one day you shall come to your senses and see it — but alas it appears that day is not today.


Can you share that answer, @rick?

Miguel, the purpose of this thread, which I indicated at the beginning, was to clear up a misunderstanding that had cropped up in a sibling thread. Initially, I had both the time and inclination to sort it out. Now I have less time and, moreover, no further inclination since observing that further explanation, no matter how meticulous, begets further misunderstanding; pointed queries beget equivocations; and dialogue shatters into a fractal of nonsequiturs. Lastly, as I indicated in my last post, I’m done with pointing out the obvious.

Which, amusingly, brings us to your request. You’ve asked me if I could share the answer to the question of whether murder, child abuse, domestic violence, and suicide are actual. There lies, I take it, an unspoken motivation or purpose behind your petition. I do not guess as to what that purpose is, but I trust, coming from you, that it is neither illegitimate nor frivolous, and so will honor it. Therefore, in a few words, unless we deny the overwhelming evidence from photographs, video recordings, eyewitness accounts, news reports, historical records, criminal trial transcripts, and our own experiences, then, yes, murder, child abuse, domestic violence, and suicide are actual.

A gripping account of actual murder and child abuse:

I have no more to say on this matter.

Thanks for the answer

I know this is hard to understand but this did not happen in the actual world. This was in the world of the psyche (real world).

@jamesjjoo can you expand on your perception of the distinction?

1 Like

@henryyyyyyyyyy If you have experienced the actual world you see that nothing like that exists there. I think this is what Richard means when he says “nothing dirty can get in.” There is only purity in the actual world. The distinction is that the actual world is pure and all else is in the world of the psyche (real world),

I have edited psyche to real world for better clarification.

I think the resolution is that the bodies involved are actual (perfect) but the identities directing the action of the bodies are not actual (depraved, diabolical, pathetic, etc).

Of course this state of affairs is not preferred, but one has limited capacity to prevent it.

I can’t force or coerce anyone else into becoming free. What I can do is experience that perfection myself.

1 Like

I could have said it better by saying that the incident occured in the real world as opposed to the actual world.