Notes on Achura

I’m referring to the fact that real and fake can be defined purely as a binary operation without any further meaning attached:

If real, then it cannot be fake.
If fake, then it cannot be real.

So a statement like:

Means that Aria is not real, nor anyone is real, so everyone must be fake.

If everyone is a fake according to one’s own view including themselves, then why does it matter if I am fake? No one was real to begin with.

If the Achuran faith has some kind of fetish for creating linguistic paradoxes, well that is their business and their belief but I am unsure as to its utility in actually conveying meaning through internal contradiction.

I believe you’re deliberately missing the point in order to call into question her assertions.
I don’t know that I understand ms Jenneth any better than she understands me, but her assertions seem to be as follows:

  1. What is real is a totality of everything that exists. We’re only real as defined by our part in that totality. We’re not real in the sense of discrete independent entities. Each of us is a part of what is real in the same sense that each individual cell makes a person, but a cell is not a person.
  2. She finds that you approach towards others and the “face” that you present to them is not genuine, that, to use your terminology, the “Real” Gesakaarin is other than you present. These would be different definitions of real, however. One pertaining to existence, the other pertaining to being genuine. The fact that you’re deliberately confusing the two is no doubt a part of why she considers you “fake”.

I believe that in this case, it’s better to use the term ‘genuine’ or ‘authentic’ than ‘real’, since it’s very easy to misunderstand ‘real’ with ‘exist’.

1 Like

What happened to my post?

1 Like

Yes. Ms Gesakaarin’s choice of the term real was, I believe, I deliberate attempt to conflate the two.


Uh … it got kind of archived, Mizhir. It’s over here. I’m sorry. There were some issues. I didn’t want to just copy it over with all of my stuff; I was afraid it would seem presumptuous.

If you want to repost it…?

1 Like

I’m listening, Aria - believe me, the lack of comment up until this point isn’t indicative of a lack of interest on my part.

1 Like

Ms. Jenneth, I see that our people are really very close. I’ve read what you was writing about “Achura Shuijing”, and I find it very similar to our new philosophy of Kutuoto Miru with its ideas to perceive the impassionate reality behind subjective interpretations, it looks just like Shuijing ideal of seeing the world clearly without illusion.

I myself lately try to follow these practices when I am forming my opinions. It still needs some work, but I am on it!

For myself, I have thought about the idea of Totality as well, probably our whole Universe has its own soul, or it is a one giant supercomputer, with atoms, us, planets, suns or even whole galaxies being its gears.

Kim Shuijing is one of many practices also have you read the histories of the ancestors They have a lot more interesting philosophies

Commander Kim

I’m pointing out that the Achuran faith cannot be defined axiomatically – and that’s the whole point.

Language is based on informal logic and axioms to convey meaning through definition and operations (grammar). How this is used fundamentally affects perception and is a philosophical question.

You could say, “That is Green.”

What is Green?

You could say, I define green as LIKE the colour of a leaf. This leads to other logical operations – are ALL leafs green?

Our success as species is that we’re really good at doing logical operations without really even thinking about it. We love set theory, putting things into categories until we’ve got giant interlocked Venn diagram of how we see the world around us. That is reflected in our use of language, grammar, and use of words, and that language informs how we think and how we define the world.

Yet fundamentally it also touches upon a philosophical question in the sciences:

Mathematics is an elegantly axiomatic logic system we can also use to describe the world around us, and make remarkably accurate predictions about it. However does that mean the universe is inherently mathematical or does it only appear so because we use mathematics to describe it?

That to me is also a central question of the Achuran faith/s. The nature of perception and definition of a universe and whether or not that universe is independent of those perceptions and definitions used to describe it.


I’m confused… Are you asking “What is Green?” or are you asking what Green is?

1 Like

Is the bit you should focus on. Logic and science can define ‘green’ quite effectively and without individual perception getting in the way, but it still observes. It still defines based on observation, even if the observer is entirely inhuman.

On the one hand, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to witness it, it still of course makes sound. Without the perceptions and definitions used to describe ‘green’ or the universe, it’d still be there and it’d still be what green would be if we were around to perceive and define it. But on the other hand there are certainly arguments for the position that without the perception and subsequent definition, it’s merely a certain wavelength of light entirely devoid of the meaning it would have with definition and perception. A soundwave no one hears… well, it’s merely another wave and does it really have anything to do with sound?

And so on and so forth. I’ll have to admit right now I am not a philosopher. I certainly don’t subscribe to the nonsense of Achuran faith exactly because it wishy-washes its way around everything we use to understand and define reality, and thus it becomes entirely meaningless much like any other fantasy or imagination that has nothing to support itself.

It’s still thought-provoking and interesting as thought experiments and debates go, but only up to a certain point where I lose interest entirely since it ceases to have any kind of relation to exactly human perception, reason and logic.

I stick with what we know is real, or at the very least have a real measurable effect. In that regard, Achuran beliefs do register, but on a list of priorities it doesn’t make the cut until there’s quite a few more hours in the day where more important matters aren’t taking up time.


All I’m saying is that a lot of the Achuran faith/s seem obsessed with variations of that old question about, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to witness it, did it fall?

At least, that’s what they usually read like to me.


Ah, but if you find a fallen tree in the forest… mm, but perhaps it was sculpted in place by a gifted woodworker. Philosophers tend to be easily confused by basic trickery like that.


Uh. Unless I’m misunderstanding you, Veik, the core assumption of most Achur sects is that the universe definitely “exists” whether we sense it or not, and the question is whether we and our perceptions are real. (Though stuff about how things behave differently when observed is pretty intriguing…)

The Shuijing answer (not to be taken as representative of Achura generally) would be “no.” In other words, a tree falling in a forest when no one is around not only is an event that happens, it’s probably all the more “real” on balance because there’s no sapient mind around to swath it in veils of words like “tree,” “forest,” “falling,” and so on. (It doesn’t change a thing about its reality if there is; it just means that there’s someone on hand telling themselves little, functional lies about it.)

We’re not particularly stuck on the question; we just have a different answer from most people. Also we kind of tend to assume the universe doesn’t care a lot what kinds of conceptual games we play with it, and try to be aware that abstraction is a really good way to end up telling yourself some real whoppers. It’s useful, necessary, but … to be used carefully, maybe?

If you think of the Totality as the world without borders, things, or names, you’re maybe not far off though.

Obviously, it gets a little hard to describe…


… Jev, I don’t think there’s an Achur seeker out there who thinks humans are important enough to mess with like that. Unless there’s like a forest demon out there molding artificial fallen trees for a laugh or something.

Actually, this kind of suggests what I should maybe talk about next.

1 Like

But you would only know it fell, given the statement, because I said it did.

1 Like

Oh, I see. This was a sophist tree.


Maybe, maybe it only collapses its superposition of fallen/not fallen upon measurement by an observer.

1 Like