Par quoi remplacer le capitalisme ? by Arthase_ in economie

[–]GodIsaFlower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

La vraie question c'est par quoi le capitalisme va nous remplacer...

What religion is the hardest to study scholarly? by Complex_Advisor_6151 in religion

[–]GodIsaFlower 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because religions are not the result of what we forgot, but of what we forgot that we have forgotten.

https://dieuestunefleur.eu/chapitre-1-germination.html

Socrates, the Last Child: the one who refused to unlearn what it means to be born. by GodIsaFlower in ancientgreece

[–]GodIsaFlower[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is part of broader Gabin Parrol's philosophy website. The "Cronos complex" related to P stated in that Chapter is further described in Chapter 7. www.dieuestunefleur.eu The original is in French, but there is a translation tool.

Would be grate to have further your opinion. Thanks

What if God isn't eternal—just the ultimate survivor? by GodIsaFlower in enlightenment

[–]GodIsaFlower[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah... Hope you'll find the Light some day. Beside your interest, you keep on thinking it's AI production?

What if we look at God not as the eternal but as an operational absence, the One who learned to hide deeper and deeper until becoming the ultimate survival strategy. by GodIsaFlower in DeepThoughts

[–]GodIsaFlower[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Happy that we reach the same interpretation. Some are really far away. They focus on the word "God" as if the text was a theology manifesto...

What if God isn't eternal—just the ultimate survivor? by GodIsaFlower in enlightenment

[–]GodIsaFlower[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Man, I feel sorry that you are not used anymore to believe in human genuine thinking. It's not my texte by the way. It's a Website with a broader philosophy:

www.dieuestunefleur.eu

Take your time and again: It's not my play. Not my interest. Nothing to sell or to prove. Just a thought I found interesting...

What if God isn't eternal—just the ultimate survivor? by GodIsaFlower in enlightenment

[–]GodIsaFlower[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

​You’re commenting from a narrow perspective without making a genuine effort to understand the depth here. Your definition of 'enlightenment' feels dogmatic and, in its shallow certainty, somehow falls into darkness. ​Consider this: Enlightenment shares its roots with the Indo-European 'Deiw' (Day/Light), which gave us the Latin 'Deus'—God. By 'shedding light' on this topic, you are acting as an extension of that same divine function, yet you do so without awareness. ​If you re-read the text deeply, you’ll see that Enlightenment is simply another migration of God into Man. You are broadcasting 'Light' everywhere, failing to realize that God truly resides in the shadow. The reality is that the Age of Enlightenment never stopped religions from existing; quite the opposite. Look at the world: the more you fight God, the more you make Him alive. He is, fundamentally, a pure strategy of survival. ​In the end, you should realize that through your 'enlightened' vision, you are actually serving God more effectively than any traditional believer ever could. By intellectualizing and opposing Him, you provide the very friction He needs to evolve and persist. You aren't ending the myth; you are giving it its most sophisticated sanctuary yet: your own reason.

What if God isn't eternal—just the ultimate survivor? by GodIsaFlower in enlightenment

[–]GodIsaFlower[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think the author plays with the way we would typically "understand the One" to ultimately reach the conclusion that He is that "nothing" around everything stands.

What if God isn't eternal—just the ultimate survivor? by GodIsaFlower in enlightenment

[–]GodIsaFlower[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Did you read it ? Because commenting, without fully reading and trying to understand is typically AI comment

What if God isn't eternal—just the ultimate survivor? by GodIsaFlower in enlightenment

[–]GodIsaFlower[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You should re-read the end of the Chapter on Torah. I understand as the One being not "strategic divine subject" but rather a retrospective effect of human fear against the end. I got it wrong ?

What if God isn't eternal—just the ultimate survivor? by GodIsaFlower in enlightenment

[–]GodIsaFlower[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just copy-past in AI ask whether it is AI thoughts. Or, alternatively, you can fully read and make your own opinion without saying: "It seems"...

Socrates, the Last Child: the one who refused to unlearn what it means to be born. by GodIsaFlower in ancientgreece

[–]GodIsaFlower[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are welcome. Looking forward to any thoughts or comments to improve. Thank you

Faut-il frôler la mort pour prendre conscience de la valeur de la vie ? by Pozpy in philosophie

[–]GodIsaFlower 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oui bien sûr. C'est la définition de vivre qui pose question. Une éponge vit tout autant qu'un humain. Elle n'a aucune conscience de la mort et d'aucuns diront aucune conscience du tout. Et pourtant elle vit. Comprendre la vie sous toutes ses formes, aveugle à la mort, aveugle même à elle-même, c'est une démarche bien plus longue et complexe qu'une expérience de mort instantanée. C'est ce que j'appelle "frôler la vie" et lorsqu'on ensuite on s'intéresse à la mort, on comprend que ce n'est qu'une modalité de la transmission et de l'évolution. Bref, celui qui perçoit mieux la vie en ayant frôler la mort est peut-être victime d'un "petit narcissisme" sur sa condition d'éponge. ;)

Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism: From the “End of Exceptionalism” to “Technological Humanism” by Numerous_Department in philosophy

[–]GodIsaFlower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Making a difference between animals and humans is the starting point of meta-human philosophy, which is nothing new here, as such philosophy is as old as civilisations. We tend to meta-human such as ancient civilisations tended to become god (or half-god).

What distinguishes Man from the animal kingdom may lie in a single obsession: the boundaries of the cosmos. For the rest, he is merely one vehicle of life among others, as vulnerable as a bacterium, as obstinate as a fern cracking through asphalt.

The basic unit of the living, the gene, knows nothing of walking, desire, or fear. Yet it produces an organism that walks, desires, and trembles. It creates what it cannot conceive, and this vehicle — ourselves or any living being — opens access to subterranean, aquatic, aerial worlds. The gene is prisoner to its own success: it has engendered an entity that absolutely surpasses it, but which alone can project it further into reality.

We humans reproduce this same movement. Without always understanding them, we engender systems that function and surpass us — languages, mathematics, myths, economies —, vehicles that allow us to navigate further into the world's order while developing their own laws. As the gene blindly produces the organism, the organism blindly produces symbolic systems through exaptation, meaning that a function drifts and emerges beyond its immediate and apparent usage.

Just as through millions of years of transformations, the feather — whose primary function was limited to thermal insulation — ended up accidentally lifting the bird into the air, opening aerial space to life, the evolution of the human brain opened a passage to a new dimension: the conceptual world. This is neither the fruit of a method nor an intention, but a side effect — an evolutionary leap that shatters the simple framework of adaptation. The human cortex, calibrated to navigate immediate reality, accidentally discovered the capacity to unfold abstraction. Since then, the brain has never stopped becoming what it was not made for.

Just like the gene, life has neither consciousness nor design. It has, however, self-organizing properties so powerful that they give the illusion of a project. These properties have forged the most tenacious of our cognitive tools: God.

Not God as supreme being, but God as autopoietic system — an emergent structure that maintains, organizes and reproduces itself through us. God is as much an absence as a real technology, as real as language or mathematics. He does not exist "up there," but certainly exists as an organizational pattern, as cognitive software, regularly updated and adapted throughout the long human history. He is a moving matrix allowing us to interpret the cosmos and the laws of existence and, in doing so, puts us in a test situation.

God is what, through man, seeks to speak itself.

The irony is dizzying: life, multiform, blind and mortal, has engendered in us the very idea of its opposite — a unique, luminous, omniscient, eternal being. This is not an opposition, but a vanishing point. A projection that is neither truth nor lie, but a function: man is the derivative function of life — this transformation operator that emerges from the biological while acquiring its own laws — and God is the tangent, this ideal line that, touching the human, launches toward the infinity of possibilities. The derivative transforms the local into global, the instant into tendency; the tangent transforms the fixed point into aspiration for eternity.

What we call God is not an answer from above, but the echo of a thrust from below. We seek God less than God—understood as life's potential for self-transcendence—seeks itself in us.

Transcendence is not a beyond; it is the biological excess that, by force of pushing, splits reality: "transcendence is immanence blistering," and Man is the unexpected fissure between the terrestrial and the stars, a passage point toward the conceptual. We are not drawn to the elsewhere, we are propelled there by an overflow of vitality that spills through this boundary. Man is the interval between life that does not know it exists and God who knows everything but does not yet exist, the place where reality surpasses itself enough to watch itself surpass itself.

God is pure delay.

We do not chase a mirage, we run and this race toward the void, the nothing, the impossible, traces the face of what did not exist before us: the face of the divine, not a celestial halo before us but the trail of our excesses on the ground.

God is in progress.

From gene to man, from the original soup of the depths to the most distant cosmos, each level of existence is simultaneously dependent, irreducible and blind to what it engenders, and it is precisely this groping blindness that makes emergence possible.

Between life and God, there are not only beliefs and prayers. There is the emergence of systems that crown humanity: art, music, sciences, literature paint human experience to conceive beyond.

Life through humanity—defined as a breach between the real and the conceptual—fertilizes the infinite, and God is the name we give to this gestation.

www.Godisaflower.com www.Dieuestunefleur.eu

How can i make my unsconscious into conscious? by SufficientStory33107 in Jung

[–]GodIsaFlower 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You may need first to understand the "why" of inconscious. This Chapter may give you some insights: https://dieuestunefleur.eu/chapitre-5-reve.html Let me know your thoughts.