The noösphere is a predicted next evolutionary step in the development of life, a kind of globalized thinking and consciousness.

The term noösphere (νόος + σφαῖρα) was coined in 1922 by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) as part of his philosophy and his intention to bridge evolutionary science and christian worldview.

VladimirVernadsky's 12 conditions for noosphere existence

  1. Humanity colonizes all of Earth
  2. Radical transformation of communication and trade means between different countries.
  3. Stronger connections, including political, between countries.
  4. Humanity dominates over other biospherical geological processes.
  5. Expand over biosphere and go to the space.
  6. New energy sources are found.
  7. Race and religion egality.
  8. The role of democracy has increased.
  9. Science is not bound by religious, philosophical and political institutions and is overall supported by society.
  10. Well-being of workers. Hunger and poverty are eliminated and illness is nearly eliminated.
  11. Earth nature is transformed in such way that it can fulfill all materialistic, æsthetic and spiritual needs of increasing population.
  12. Wars are gone.

All 12 points are described in detail in Fidan Yanshina’s 1993 article “V. Vernadsky’s noosphere: a utopia or a real perspective?” («Ноосфера В.Вернадского: утопия или реальная перспектива?»). Read (in Russian): No full free translations have been found by any of us yet.

See also


new: 2021-02-15 07:54 UTCTimurIsmagilov: Years ago, LionKimbro wrote this on MeatballWiki:

I’ve tried to do some research into VladimirVernadsky??’s use of the term “Noosphere,” but this research is troubled by the language barrier – I haven’t found anything yet that is translated into English, and costs less than $100 on Amazon. What is clear is that the Russian Cosmists (of which VladimirVernadsky?? was a contributor) have a defensible claim to the term, or at the very least, the idea.

I translated something I found.

new: 2021-02-27 21:18 UTCLionKimbro:

Oh, very interesting Timur, thank you! It is indeed difficult to find English on Vernadsky’s thinking, and you may very well have been the first to translate what you translated into English on the Internet. I certainly have not ever read what you wrote before.

Teilhard used the term “NooSphere” in the context of the “GeoSphere?” and the “BioSphere?.”

Specifically, GeoSphere? concerns all non-living matter in the universe. So the sun, gas in space, other planets, and specifically locally, the Earth.

Then BioSphere? concerns all living matter in the universe. But specifically locally, the thin layer of vegetation and animals (including us) on the surface of the Earth.

The NooSphere concerns all thinking processes in the universe. So the neurons. But also radio communications, pictures on the walls of caves, sounds passing through the air – but specifically the psychic content of experience that lives on the other side of the sign or symbol. “The inner dimension” so to say of existence.

Teleologically, Teilhard spoke of the “Omega Point,” a hypothesized unification of the NooSphere. Not into a single experience, like the Borg in Star Trek, but more like a single spirit, a broad connection and solidarity, like Galaxia in the culmination of IsaacAsimov’s Foundations series, Foundation’s Edge, which incidentally, matches VladimirVernadsky?’s list.

new: 2021-02-15 07:54 UTCTimurIsmagilov:

you may very well have been the first to translate what you translated into English on the Internet.

Wow, what a breaking-through event! How could that happen though

You should probably move what you said next to the document mode.

Some people in Russia use the word noosphere in this sense: a “dimension” where ideas go. When several people have the same idea, it means that the noosphere probably gave the idea to them simultaneously, or moved it from the first to the second.

Something similar happened when I and one specific Vladimir (who is also interested in SchematicMedium) got the same idea (me first, him second) without talking on the topic before. We concluded it’s the noospheric effect.

Although I don’t really believe into that, it sounds great. That day I described the idea we had on my site (Russian). Oh, yet another noosphere-related thing you can’t access because of the language barrier! The life is giving you the signs to learn Russian :-)

new: 2021-03-01 20:09 UTCAlex Schroeder: This description of the noosphere reminds me of Sheldrake’s idea of morphic resonance, which includes “telepathy-type interconnections between organisms.” More in the introduction on his website. I don’t believe in it, in a scientific way, but perhaps in a kind of astrological way. 😆 It has no power of prediction, it’s not “useful” knowledge, but it’s a vocabulary of words to talk about nebulous feelings and observations in hindsight. Tricky WordMagic, in other words.

new: 2021-02-27 21:18 UTCLionKimbro:


Yeah, … Sheldrake…

So, a lot of my world view is resonant if not directly inspired by Tamera, and they build a lot of their justifications for their thinking (specifically, their fields theory) on RupertSheldrake?. But I think there’s a better source: KurtLewin?, who was not woo, and who developed a theory he called the theory of PsychologicalForceFields?, and within a purely naturalistic, scientifically conceivable context.

One summary reads: Lewin’s theory is called field theory as to a psychologist field means the total psychological world in which a person lives at a certain time. It includes matters and events of past, present and future, concrete and abstract, actual and imaginary – all interpreted as simultaneous aspects of a situation. Lewin states that each person exists within a field of forces. The field of forces to which the individual is responding or reacting is called his life-space.

Sadly, his field theory has been absorbed by, and it seems only absorbed by, the world of advertising. DieterDuhm? argues (and I think rightly) that it is activists who should be thinking about these models. I hear echos of it when DavidKorten writes about movement politics, and I hear echos of it within narrative politics – people working on (for example😊 “creating a new story.” But I think that these ideas get fairly dis-embodied, and that thinking about “psychological force fields” puts the idea back into the body.

Kurt Lewin believed that there was a predictive power in understanding the psychological force fields in play in an environment – I think he was trying to say something about the nature of fascism originally.

A similar paper from Japan, 山本七平, trying to understand how Japan entered into WW2, wrote 「空気」の研究, describing how the atmosphere changed and quickly determined actions.

I remember that when COVID hit in the United States, it wasn’t at all the case that (A) information came in, (B) some government body thought about the risks and merits and so on, (C) issued recommmendations to a governor, (D) the governor then relayed what was to occur to the population, which then either (E) conformed or resisted. That wasn’t at all what happened.

What happened was that (A) information was trickling in, (B) suddenly, people decided that work was not a good idea immediately, while people sort out what it means; simultaneously, people everywhere stopped going out, (C) workplaces started telling people “don’t come to work,” – everything was suddenly locked down, without any interventions from government whatsoever, (D) we started seeing messages on the road about saving lives and such, (E) only after several weeks, maybe a full month even, did governors start weighing in on what was allowed and what wasn’t allowed.

This is what Kurt Lewin called a “psychological force field.” This is a particularly forceful application of what the Japanese call 空気, which can be roughly translated as “air” or “atmosphere.” These are directly noospheric events.

We don’t necessarily understand how they work, but there does seem to be almost mechanical or magnetic to how they function. This is NOT to go into woo-land, but rather, to simply give a representation to phenomenon that are observed.

In Star Community, we use the following terms with some regularity:

  • [[Space?]] – the felt sense of what it is like to be in a particular kind of environment, either socially or individually, perceived psychologically – ex: “There wasn’t much space in the conversation for that kind of question.”
  • GameWorld? – the analytical comprehension of what are the fundamental qualities that make up a space – one good breakdown of which is TimothyLeary?’s SevenDimensionalGameModel? feature (1) roles (2) rules (3) strategies (4) goals (5) language (6) locations (7) moves
  • field (PsychologicalForceField?) – the overall space extended by an operating gameworld amidst a population
  • [[Philosophy?]] – the coherent intellectual composition of a GameWorld?

So for example, NVC (NonViolentCommunication) as a game-world has the role of “everybody is equal,” rules about what is violent vs. non-violent speech, strategies for the expression of needs within that space, the goal of a non-violent world, a particular language (“needs”, “strategies”, “jackyl”, “giraffe”, etc., etc.,) to express its gameworld, different recognized states that a person can be in, and particular moves (such as “observe-feel-need-request”) that are part of that GameWorld?. That gameworld produces a felt space – “what it is like to be in a social environment defined principally by NVC.” There is a philosophy that underpins the gameworld of NVC. And should sufficient number of people in a space be holding the practice of NVC, then there is a field that people can perceive, even if they have nothing to do with NVC, have never heard of it, nor even understand it.

I pick NVC just as an example, we could have pulled anything in. For example, the United States is its own gameworld – with all of the components of Timothy Leary’s model, and just as powerful in determining the motions and thoughts and feelings of the people living in it. It’s not that people are incapable of original or divergent thinking and speaking; It’s that there are forces in the world that have to be contended with, and have a great deal to do with what is happening within the individual’s own inner structure. It is not that a person can’t resist or challenge or work to establish a counter-field, but rather, it’s about understanding the medium that we’re working within.

If the Noosphere is “air,” the Fields Theory might be akin to attempting to understand “weather.”

I don’t think that it’s an accident that (with the notable exception of Kurt Lewin!) in considerations of the social psychology, that the consideration of the spiritual, or the ideal, or the dream, or of God, or any such thing – should come up. Because within the individual, the naive perception of dream or wish is right there, staring one in the face, like ErnstBloch? notes in such detail. There is nothing really neutral in the consideration of society; Our partiality is right there, people considering people. Impartiality is not really an option.


Define external redirect: RupertSheldrake Philosophy TimothyLeary PsychologicalForceFields ErnstBloch GameWorld SevenDimensionalGameModel Space PsychologicalForceField DieterDuhm GeoSphere KurtLewin VladimirVernadsky BioSphere

EditNearLinks: IsaacAsimov NonViolentCommunication MeatballWiki


The same page elsewhere: