#noosphere — Public Fediverse posts

Du Surhomme et du Supramental

Le thème du surhomme chez Sri Aurobindo n’a que peu à voir avec celui de Nietzsche, bien que le terme prête à confusion. Pour Sri Aurobindo, l’évolution ne s’arrête pas à l’apparition de l’homme et du mental. Il reprend le schéma darwinien, matière, vie, mental, mais y ajoute une étape supérieure, le supramental, un plan de conscience-vérité situé au-delà du mental, où l’être ne connaît plus par déduction, doute ou fragmentation, mais par identité directe avec le réel. Dans son œuvre majeure, La Vie Divine, et dans son poème Savitri, Aurobindo décrit ce supramental comme le principe de liaison entre l’Absolu (Sachchidananda, Existence-Conscience-Béatitude) et le monde manifesté. Le surhomme, il préfère parler d’être gnostique, n’est donc pas un individu qui s’élève par la volonté de puissance, mais une mutation de l’espèce rendue possible par la descente de cette conscience supramentale dans la matière elle-même. Ce n’est pas une conquête, c’est une transformation.

Satprem, disciple français d’Aurobindo et de Mirra Alfassa, a présenté cette pensée dans Sri Aurobindo ou l’Aventure de la conscience, puis a consacré le reste de sa vie à transcrire et prolonger l’expérience de la Mirra Alfassa telle que consignée dans L’Agenda. Il y insiste sur un point radical, la transformation ne concerne pas seulement l’esprit ou le mental, mais la cellule, le corps physique lui-même. Mirra Alfassa cherchait à faire descendre la conscience supramentale jusque dans la matière corporelle, pour en changer le fonctionnement même, dépasser la maladie, la fatigue, la mort, non par une croyance en un au-delà, mais par une mutation vécue ici, dans la chair. Satprem parle d’une aventure, d’un risque existentiel assumé individuellement, plutôt que d’une doctrine à suivre.

Avec maintenant de la perspective, il est intéressant de faire le lien avec le développement technologique actuel. En effet, l’intelligence artificielle (IA), l’ingénierie génétique, les interfaces cerveau-machine, les recherches sur le prolongement de la vie poursuivent elles aussi un dépassement des limites humaines. On y retrouve un même désir d’aller au-delà de l’homme tel qu’il est. Mais le mouvement est inversé. Le transhumanisme technologique procède du dehors vers le dedans, il modifie le corps et le cerveau par des outils extérieurs, le code génétique, le silicium, les prothèses, sans que la conscience elle-même change de nature. Sri Aurobindo, Mirra Alfassa et Satprem font référence à un mouvement du dedans vers le dehors. C’est la conscience, qui, en s’élevant puis en redescendant dans la matière, qui transforme cette dernière de l’intérieur. L’IA la plus avancée reste, dans ce cadre, une prouesse mentale, par les calculs, les corrélations, les prédictions, et non par un saut hors du mental. Elle prolonge et démultiplie les capacités du mental humain sans accéder à ce que Sri Aurobindo appelait la connaissance par identité, la perception directe et unifiée du vrai.

Il y a d’ailleurs, chez ces trois auteurs, une mise en garde qui résonne avec l’époque actuelle. Une puissance qui croît sans transformation intérieure correspondante produit, non un être supérieur, mais ce que Sri Aurobindo nommait un être asurique, surpuissant et désaxé. L’accélération technologique sans changement de conscience peut ainsi être lue, dans cette perspective, comme un risque plus que comme un accomplissement, l’augmentation des moyens sans l’approfondissement de l’être qui les manie.

On peut enfin rapprocher cette vision de celle de Teilhard de Chardin et de sa noosphère, l’idée d’une couche pensante planétaire en formation, et voir dans les réseaux numériques mondiaux et l’IA collective une préfiguration matérielle et fonctionnelle de cette intelligence partagée. Mais pour Aurobindo comme pour Satprem, cette interconnexion croissante des mentaux ne suffit pas à produire le saut supramental, elle prépare peut-être le terrain, sans pouvoir s’y substituer, car ce saut reste, dans leur pensée, une affaire de conscience vécue et incarnée, non de puissance de calcul.

Une chanson de Harmonium – Le corridor/Les premières lumières

Les paroles sur https://genius.com/Harmonium-le-corridor-lyrics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SLOsj8111g&list=PL-lygRrMXFqXEptFYra2O1TviVuLHuxLI&index=7

Par Daniel Jean dans Voies (x) de passage

COPYRIGHT – DROIT DE REPRODUCTION – La reproduction de cet article sur un blogue ou un site est autorisé à condition de respecter :   * L’intégralité du texte — Vous ne devez pas modifier, transformer ou adapter ce texte. * Le droit d’auteur — Vous devez citer le nom de la source (avec un hyperlien vers l’article original de préférence). * La finalité sans but lucratif — Vous n’avez pas le droit d’utiliser cette création à des fins commerciales. Si j’ai utilisé vos textes/photos et que vous souhaitez que je les retire, merci de me contacter en commentaire, ce sera fait rapidement.

When you read the source material of the #accelerationist belief system directly, it really throws into stark relief the current-day reverence for #AI, and how 'the fascists' of the 2020s (#neoreactionaries in the #Vance / #Thiel / #Musk / #Zuckerberg / #Balaji camp) fantasize about encoding their white supremacist patriarchal capitalist values into their God.

I recommend reading "#Axsys" as originally defined by #NickLand & the #CCRU
https://ccru.fandom.com/wiki/Axsys

At a #DWeb grassroots level, in hindsight it really makes a lot of sense to me that so many of the core #HOLO team and #Holochain community were involved with #NooSphere.

“I tend to think that most fears about A.I. are best understood as fears about capitalism”*…

Further to Wednesday‘s and yesterday‘s posts (on to other topics again after this, I promise), a powerful piece from Patrick Tanguay (in his always-illuminating Sentiers newsletter).

He begins with a consideration of Peter Wolfendale’s “Geist in the machine“

… Wolfendale argues that the current AI debate recapitulates an 18th-century conflict between mechanism and romanticism. On one side, naive rationalists (Yudkowsky, Bostrom, much of Silicon Valley) assume intelligence is ultimately reducible to calculation; throw enough computing power at the problem and the gap between human and machine closes. On the other, popular romantics (Bender, Noë, many artists) insist that something about human cognition, whether it’s embodiment, meaning, or consciousness, can never be mechanised. Wolfendale finds both positions insufficient. The rationalists reduce difficult choices to optimisation problems, while the romantics bundle distinct capacities into a single vague essence.

His alternative draws on Kant and Hegel. He separates what we loosely call the “soul” into three capacities: wisdom (the metacognitive ability to reformulate problems, not just solve them), creativity (the ability to invent new rules rather than search through existing ones), and autonomy (the capacity to question and revise our own motivations). Current AI systems show glimmers of the first two but lack the third entirely. Wolfendale treats autonomy as the defining feature of personhood: not a hidden essence steering action, but the ongoing process of asking who we want to be and revising our commitments accordingly. Following Hegel he calls this Geist, spirit as self-reflective freedom.

Wolfendale doesn’t ask whether machines can have souls; he argues we should build them, and that the greater risk lies in not doing so. Machines that handle all our meaningful choices without possessing genuine autonomy would sever us from the communities of mutual recognition through which we pursue truth, beauty, and justice. A perfectly optimised servant that satisfies our preferences while leaving us unchanged is, in his phrase, “a slave so abject it masters us.” Most philosophical treatments of AI consciousness end with a verdict on possibility. Wolfendale ends with an ethical imperative: freedom is best preserved by extending it.

I can’t say I agree, unless “we”… end up with a completely different relationship to our technology and capital. However, his argument all the way before then is a worthy reflection, and pairs well with the one below and another from issue No.387. I’m talking about Anil Seth’s The mythology of conscious AI, where he argues that consciousness probably requires biological life and that silicon-based AI is unlikely to achieve it. Seth maps the biological terrain that makes consciousness hard to replicate; Wolfendale maps the philosophical terrain that makes personhood worth pursuing anyway, on entirely different grounds. Seth ends where the interesting problem begins for Wolfendale: even if machines can’t be conscious, the question of whether they can be autonomous persons, capable of self-reflective revision, remains open:

Though GenAI systems can’t usually compete with human creatives on their own, they are increasingly being used as imaginative prosthetics. This symbiosis reveals that what distinguishes human creativity is not the precise range of heuristics embedded in our perceptual systems, but our metacognitive capacity to modulate and combine them in pursuit of novelty. What makes our imaginative processes conscious is our ability to self-consciously intervene in them, deliberately making unusual choices or drawing analogies between disparate tasks. And yet metacognition is nothing on its own. If reason demands revision, new rules must come from somewhere. […]

[Hubert Dreyfus] argues that the comparative robustness of human intelligence lies in our ability to navigate the relationships between factors and determine what matters in any practical situation. He claims that this wouldn’t be possible were it not for our bodies, which shape the range of actions we can perform, and our needs, which unify our various goals and projects into a structured framework. Dreyfus argues that, without bodies and needs, machines will never match us. […]

This is the basic link between self-determination and self-justification. For Hegel, to be free isn’t simply to be oneself – it isn’t enough to play by one’s own rules. We must also be responsive to error, ensuring not just that inconsistencies in our principles and practices are resolved, but that we build frameworks to hold one another mutually accountable. […]

Delegating all our choices to mere automatons risks alienating us from our sources of meaning. If we consume only media optimised for our personal preferences, generated by AIs with no preferences of their own, then we will cease to belong to aesthetic communities in which tastes are assessed, challenged and deepened. We will no longer see ourselves and one another as even passively involved in the pursuit of beauty. Without mutual recognition in science and civic life, we might as easily be estranged from truth and right – told how to think and act by anonymous machines rather than experts we hold to account…

Tanguay then turns to “The Prospect of Butlerian Jihad” by Liam Mullally, in which Mullally uses…

… Herbert’s Dune and the Butlerian Jihad [here] as a lens for what he sees as a growing anti-tech “structure of feeling” (Raymond Williams’s term): the diffuse public unease about AI, enshittification, surveillance, and tech oligarchs that has not yet solidified into coherent politics. The closest thing to a political expression so far is neo-Luddism, which Mullally credits for drawing attention to technological exploitation but finds insufficient. His concern is that the impulse to reject technology wholesale smuggles in essentialist assumptions about human nature, a romantic defence of “pure” humanity against the corruption of machines. He traces this logic back to Samuel Butler’s 1863 essay Darwin Among the Machines, which framed the human-technology relationship as a zero-sum contest for supremacy, and notes that Butler’s framing was “explicitly supremacist,” written from within colonial New Zealand and structured by the same logic of domination it claimed to resist.

The alternative Mullally proposes draws on Bernard Stiegler’s concept of “originary technicity”: the idea that human subjectivity has always been constituted in part by its tools, that there is no pre-technological human to defend. [see here] If that’s right, then opposing technology as such is an “ontological confusion,” a fight against something that is already part of what we are. The real problem is not machines but the economic logic that shapes their development and deployment. Mullally is clear-eyed about this: capital does not have total command over its technologies, and understanding how they work is a precondition for contesting them. He closes by arguing that the anti-tech structure of feeling is “there for the taking,” but only if it can be redirected. The fights ahead are between capital and whatever coalition can form against it, not between humanity and machines. Technology is a terrain in that conflict; abandoning it means losing before the contest begins.

Wolfendale’s Geist in the Machine above arrived at a parallel conclusion from a different direction: where Mullally argues that rejecting technology means defending a false vision of the human, Wolfendale argues that refusing to extend autonomy to machines risks severing us from the self-reflective freedom that makes us persons in the first place. Both reject the romantic position, but for different reasons:

To the extent that neo-Luddites bring critical attention to technology, they are doing useful work. But this anti-tech sentiment frequently cohabitates with something uneasy: the treatment of technology as some abstract and impenetrable evil, and the retreat, against this, into essentialist views of the human. […]

If “humanity” is not a thing-in-itself, but historically, socially and technically mutable, then the sphere of possibility of the human and of our world becomes much broader. Our relationship to the non-human — to technology or to nature — does not need to be one of control, domination and exploitation. […]

As calls for a fight back against technology grow, the left needs to carefully consider what it is advocating for. Are we fighting the exploitation of workers, the hollowing out of culture and the destruction of the earth via technology, or are we rallying in defence of false visions of pure, a-technical humanity? […]

The anti-tech structure of feeling is there for the taking. But if it is to lead anywhere, it must be taken carefully: a fightback against technological exploitation will be found not in the complete rejection of technology, but in the short-circuiting of one kind of technology and the development of another.

As Max Read (scroll down) observes:

… if we understand A.I. as a product of the systems that precede it, I think it’s fair to say ubiquitous A.I.-generated text is “inevitable” in the same way that high-volume blogs were “inevitable” or Facebook fake news pages were “inevitable”: Not because of some “natural” superiority or excellence, but because they follow so directly from the logic of the system out of which they emerge. In this sense A.I. is “inevitable” precisely because it’s not revolutionary…

The question isn’t if we want a relationship with technology; it’s what kind of relationship we want. We’ve always (at least since we’ve been a conscious species) co-existed with, and been shaped by, tools; we’ve always suffered the “friction” of technological transition as we innovate new tools. As yesterday’s post suggested (in its defense of the open web in the face on a voracious attack from powerful LLM companies), “what matters is power“… power to shape the relationship(s) we have with the technologies we use. That power is currently in the hands of a relatively few companies, all concerned above all else with harvesting as much money as they can from “uses” they design to amplify that engagement and ease that monetization. It doesn’t, of course, have to be this way.

We’ve lived under modern capitalism for only a few hundred years, and under the hyper-global, hyper-extractive regime we currently inhabit for only a century-and-a-half or so, during which time, in fits and starts, it has grown ever more rapcious. George Monbiot observed that “like coal, capitalism has brought many benefits. But, like coal, it now causes more harm than good.” And Ursula Le Guin, that “we live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.” In many countries, “divine right” monarchy has been replaced by “constitutional monarchy.” Perhaps it’s time for more of the world to consider “constitutional capitalism.” We could start by learning from the successes and failures of Scandinavia and Europe.

Social media, AI, quantum computing– on being clear as to the real issue: “Geist in the machine & The prospect of Butlerian Jihad,” from @inevernu.bsky.social.

Apposite: “The enclosure of the commons inaugurates a new ecological order. Enclosure did not just physically transfer the control over grasslands from the peasants to the lord. It marked a radical change in the attitudes of society toward the environment.”

(All this said, David Chalmers argues that there’s one possibility that might change everything: “Could a Large Language Model be Conscious?” On the other hand, the ARC Prize Foundation suggests, we have some time: a test they devised for benchmarking agentic intelligence recently found that “humans can solve 100% of the environments, in contrast to frontier AI systems which, as of March 2026, score below 1%”… :)

* Ted Chiang (gift article; see also here and here and here)

###

As we keep our eyes on the prize, we might spare a thought for a man who wrestled with a version of these same issues in the last century, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin; he died on this date in 1955.  A Jesuit theologian, philosopher, geologist, and paleontologist, he conceived the idea of the Omega Point (a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which he believed the universe was evolving) and developed Vladimir Vernadsky‘s concept of noosphere.  Teilhard took part in the discovery of Peking Man, and wrote on the reconciliation of faith and evolutionary theory.  His thinking on both these fronts was censored during his lifetime by the Catholic Church (in particular for its implications for “original sin”); but in 2009, they lifted their ban.

source

Vous connaissez le copyright trolling ?

Une raison de plus de publier en #CreativeCommons (je sais la porte ici est déjà grande ouverte, mais sait-on #bienvenueparminous ...)

Polémique qui date pas d'hier : la #propriété - même intellectuelle - c'est le vol ?

(Je suis pour la reconnaissance des auteurices
la rémunération collective des ouvrages de vie
le partage radical des idées et des créations
et le partage rationnel des biens
et des outils de production)

#noosphère #anarchie

https://agence-web-46.fr/le-copyright-trolling/

"The #Phenomenon of #Man" by Pierre #TeilharddeChardin - #AI - #reviews #channeling #esoterics #spirituality #OmegaPoint , #consciousness , #cosmogenesis , #noosphere , #love , #service , #evolution
https://omdaruliterature.blogspot.com/2026/03/the-phenomenon-of-man-by-pierre.html

Users Are Too Dependent on Centralized Techno-Fascist Corporate Structure to Ever Leave Discord

I’m watching people scatter into countless real-time chat alternatives to Discord after Discord started pulling the age-verification and age-gating card.

https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/09/discord-to-roll-out-age-verification-next-month-for-full-access-to-its-platform/

It’s very frustrating because people are entirely missing the point of a community and how social networks work. Real-time platforms and social media networks only work well when a large number of people share the same space at the same time. If everyone creates separate servers or competing apps, the result is fragmentation that makes it unviable.

One reason why Bluesky became so successful is the invitation and starter-pack move. It essentially allowed people to move collectively as cliques. Bluesky used invitations and starter packs to move groups of friends together. This kept communities intact. Moving as cliques preserves network structure, whereas random scattering does not. People aren’t do not seem to intend to move as cliques or subgraphs of networks off of Discord. And the whole reason people were on Discord was to host their communities, so an alternative becomes pointless if your community doesn’t remain intact.

Instead of an active, strongly connected, possibly distributed network, you get dozens of small pockets. I am referring to a potential distributed network rather than a single centralized platform, because Matrix is an example of a decentralized chat protocol. Not all alternatives have to be centralized like Discord. Technically, many older chat protocols, such as XMPP and IRC, are examples of federated real-time synchronous messaging. They allowed communication between users on different, independently operated servers. Federation means that multiple servers can interconnect so that users from separate networks can exchange messages with one another seamlessly.

Decentralized alternatives would not be a problem if people moved to the same distributed network as cohesive groups. However, what I am seeing is that people move in disconnected and stochastic ways to entirely separate distributed networks, so communities are not kept intact. For example, when people move to XMPP servers or Matrix servers, it bifurcates and disconnects social networks. Notice I said XMPP or Matrix, which logically means people are on Matrix but not XMPP, or they are on XMPP but not Matrix. That implies a person would need to be on both Matrix and XMPP to speak to their original community from Discord if it split down the middle. To synchronize conversations in chats, there would need to be a bridge. It’s a pretty complicated solution.

The likely outcome is that people will remain on the dominant platform because of its scale and structure. The deeper irony is that while people may want independence from corporate platforms, they often struggle to organize effectively without the centralized structure those platforms provide. They’ve become so dependent on corporate structures to support their communities that they have no clue how to organize their own social networks in a sustainable way.

I’ve always been an internet nerd, but most of my social life has been offline. I view my interactions with the social app layer of the internet as a game, so losing that domain of the Internet is not devastating to me.

I’ll give you an example. This is a WordPress site. You hear this insincere nostalgia from Millennials and Gen X for a simulacrum that never was, especially concerning forums. Check this out: when you go into the plugin installation section of WordPress, this is on the second row you see:

https://bbpress.org/

That means any WordPress site has the capability to host a forum. They’re nostalgic for a setup where you can use a simple install script on any hosting service to install WordPress. After that, you can then just add a plugin to turn it into a forum. Hell, they can do this on WordPress.com if they don’t want to self-host.

You can make a forum, but no one will use it because they’d rather use a centralized platform like Reddit. Users have become so dependent on corporations to structure and organize communities that they can’t do it themselves. It’s sort of like the cognitive debt that accrues when people outsource their thinking to AI.

The issue is not that forums are hard to host or create; rather, the issue is that people have become so dependent on centralized corporate structures that they can’t maintain or organize their own communities, which is why everyone ends up on Reddit or Discord. A reason I keep hearing for why people don’t want to leave Discord is that it’s hard to recreate the community structure that Discord’s features provide. They claim that they want independence from corporate platforms, but rely on the centralized structure those platforms provide to function socially.

People say they want decentralized freedom, but in practice they depend on centralized platforms to maintain social cohesion. Stochastically scattering to the digital winds of the noosphere destroys the very communities they’re trying to preserve.

BlueSky’s Solution To Moderating Is Moderating Without Moderating via Social Proximity

I have noticed a lot of people are confused about why some posts don’t show up on threads, though they are not labeled by the moderation layer. Bluesky has begun using what it calls social neighborhoods (or network proximity) as a ranking signal for replies in threads. Replies from people who are closer to you in the social graph, accounts you follow, interact with, or share mutual connections with, are prioritized and shown more prominently. Replies from accounts that are farther away in that network are down-ranked. They are pushed far down the thread or placed behind “hidden replies.”

Each person gets their own unique view of a thread based on their social graph. It creates the impression that replies from distant users simply don’t exist. This is true even though they’re still technically public and viewable if you expand the thread or adjust filters. Bluesky is explicitly using features of subgraphs to moderate without moderating. Their reasoning is that if you can’t see each other, you can’t harass each other. Ergo, there is nothing to moderate.

Bluesky mentions that here:

https://bsky.social/about/blog/10-31-2025-building-healthier-social-media-update

As a digression, I’m not going to lie: I really enjoyed working on software built on the AT protocol, but their fucking users are so goddamn weird. It’s sort of like enjoying building houses, but hating every single person who moves into them. But, you don’t have to deal with them because you’re just the contractor. That is how I feel about Bluesky. I hate the people. I really like the protocol and infrastructure.

I sort of am a sadist who does enjoy drama, so I do get schadenfreude from people with social media addictions and parasocial fixations who reply to random people on Bluesky, because they don’t realize their replies are disconnected from the author’s thread unless that person is within their network. They aren’t part of the conversation they think they are. They’re algorithmically isolated from everyone else. Their replies aren’t viewable from the author’s thread because of how Bluesky handles social neighborhoods.

Bluesky’s idea of social neighborhoods is about grouping users into overlapping clusters based on real interaction patterns rather than just the follow graph. Unlike Twitter, it does not treat the network as one big public square. Instead, it models networks of “social neighborhoods” made up of people you follow, people who follow you, people you frequently interact with, and people who are closely connected to those groups. They’re soft, probabilistic groupings rather than strict labels.

Everyone does not see the same replies. Bluesky is being a bit vague with “hidden.” Hidden means your reply is still anchored to the thread and can be expanded. There is another way Bluesky can handle this. Bluesky uses social neighborhoods to judge contextual relevance. Replies from people inside or near your social neighborhood are more likely to be shown inline with a thread, expanded by default, or served in feeds. Replies from outside your neighborhood are still public and still indexed, but they’re treated as lower-context contributions.

Basically, if you reply to a thread, you will see it anchored to the conversation, and everyone will see it in search results, as a hashtag, or from your profile, but it will not be accessible via the thread of the person you were replying to. It is like shadow-banning people from threads unless they are strongly networked.

Because people have not been working with the AT Protocol like I have, they assume they are shadow-banned across the entire Bluesky app view. No—everyone is automatically shadow-banned from everyone else unless they are within the same social neighborhood. In other words, you are not part of the conversation you think you are joining because you are not part of their social group.

Your replies will appear in profiles, hashtag feeds, or search results without being visually anchored to the full thread. Discovery impressions are neighborhood-agnostic: they serve content because it matches a query, tag, or activity stream. Once the reply is shown, the app then decides whether it’s worth pulling in the rest of the conversation for you. If the original author and most participants fall outside your neighborhood, Bluesky often chooses not to expand that context automatically.

Bluesky really is trying to avoid having to moderate, so this is their solution. Instead of banning or issuing takedown labels to DIDs, the system lets replies exist everywhere, but not in that particular instance of the thread.

I find this ironic because a large reason why many people are staying on Bluesky and not moving to the fediverse—thank God, because I do not want them there—is discoverability, virality, and engagement.

In case anyone is asking how I know so much about how these algorithms work: I was a consultant on a lot of these types of algorithms, so I certainly hope I’d know how they work, lol. No, you get no more details about the work I’ve done. I have no hand in the algorithm Bluesky is using, but I have proposed and implemented that type of algorithm before.

I have an interest in noetics and the noosphere. A large amount of my ontological work is an extension of my attempts to model domains that have no spatial or temporal coordinates. The question is how do you generalize a metric space that has no physically, spatial properties. I went to school to try to formalize those ideas. Turns out they’re rather useful for digital social networks, too. The ontological analog to spatial distance, when you have no space, is a graph of similarities.

@davetroy

The Story behind the #Noosphere and the #EverythingApp #Musk #Putin

(13/n)

... I recommend reading (at least) chapter 1, on Russian #Cosmism, of this excellent free book by noted #Russia expert #MarleneLaruelle:

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-mono/10.4324/9780429426773/russian-nationalism-marlene-laruelle

#ElonMusk very likely became a bro of #Putin in 2004 through then Congressman (until 2018) #DanaRohrbacher, quite likely a #Kremlin asset 1):

https://mastodon.social/@HistoPol/109831512609805105

1)
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/putin-congress-rohrabacher-trump-231775
//

@davetroy

The Story behind the #Noosphere and the #EverythingApp #Musk #Putin

(12/n)

NOTES (finally found again! :)

From 2022 posts of mine on the DeadBirdSite:

"This is a New Age eschatological prophecy rooted in #Russian #Cosmism. #VladimirVernadsky, chief theorist of the Noosphere concept, himself predicted the transition would be violent and include upheavals; which may be a self-fulfilling prophecy."

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA237-1.html

"For those new to the “Noosphere” concept,...

Can the free press be saved?

We are now witnessing mass public capitulation from corporate media owners in a way that feels unprecedented.

Whether today’s billionaire media owners are angling for large federal contracts
or anticipatorily bending the knee so their companies are not seen as “the enemy”,
the chilling effect is the same:
major media publications are even more incentivized now to treat the rich and powerful with kid gloves,
if not outright sycophancy.

The few that refuse to do this will have to face the wrath of our notoriously censorious, litigioushead of state.
The most powerful man in the world is currently suing Iowa pollster Ann Selzer for merely predicting that Kamala Harris would win the state last November;
what he calls “election fraud” most people call “polling”.
With that context, is there any reason to expect that prominent players like Paramount and Skydance would do anything but hold the line if it means getting FCC approval for their merger?

The natural counterbalance to for-profit media would seem to be non-profit newsrooms.
They need not go cross-eyed from trying to keep in view both the public’s interest and that of their owner.
In the US alone there are at least 475 independent outlets,
from the Marshall Project to the Center for Public Integrity -- which has won several Pulitzer prizes for its investigative reporting.
And independent journalism is currently enjoying a renaissance on self-publishing platforms
like #Substack and the newly launched #Noosphere.
These sites offer refuge for writers that have renounced
(or been renounced by)
corporate news -- including Mehdi Hasan and Matt Taibbi.
The journalistic equivalent of farm-to-table, it cuts out any meddlesome middle-moguls between the writer and the reader.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/13/free-press?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Noosphere, una piattaforma per per seguire i giornalisti indipendenti, lanciato la propria app

I giornalisti su #Noosphere esercitano il pieno controllo editoriale. Viaggiano dove vogliono, raccontano le storie che vogliono raccontare. Sono incoraggiati a costruire legami con il loro pubblico.

https://www.cjr.org/innovations/ferguson-noosphere-app-follow-freelancers-field.php

@giornalismo

I remain stunned by the cognitive dissonance from so many in the U.S.

Self-centered consumer culture will kill democracy. It largely already has.

A lot of people are going to be caught completely off guard in this wave.

Some things are bigger than countries and material possessions. The cresting swell is breaking and most don’t want to acknowledge it. They are in for a rude awakening.

#uspol #meta #zuckerberg #EatTheRich #revolution #justice #truth #ai #disinformation #noosphere

This song is so good it makes me physically angry at the redundant meat vessel I inhabit. (kok) #Noosphere

Winding Paths in a Space of Conflicts

In October 2023 a good friend sent me a picture of his absurd route from Tokyo to Helsinki, starting not westwards as sound, but eastwards, south of Kamchatka, then through the Bering straight all the way to the North Pole, and then back south to Scandinavia across the Arctic Ocean...

https://ourednik.info/maps/2024/05/13/winding-paths-in-a-space-of-conflicts/

#geography #travel #aeronautics #geopolitics #noosphere #cyberspace

We've got the latest version of the @causalislands #podcast ready for some weekend listening!

It was super great to have @gordon @cdata on to talk about their app Subconscious, the #Noosphere protocol that powers it: EP05 Building a Second Brain
1/3

@ianthetechie they are!

@boris was the host, @gordon and @cdata are the founders of Subconscious and the #Noosphere protocol

Actual promo of the episode coming out tomorrow.

Glad you liked it!

@cdata cool! I haven’t dug into TTRPG on socials much, so didn’t know about Lore24.

But OBVIOUSLY this is the first multiplayer test sphere for #Noosphere right????

Looking forward to this conference about all things Noospheric. https://event.fourwaves.com/n2conference/pages

#noosphere #TeilhardDeChardin #MindTheCommunity

Another day under the sun and the rational layer of the biosphere (noosphere) keeps burning solar energy stored long ago by the nonrational layer of the biosphere. For the first time, the biosphere (or a part of it) senses this is going to damage itself. We are earth, earth is us.
#climate_change #noosphere #morning_thoughts

@roland @vanderwal and regardless of public/private, we’re missing multiplayer.

Looking forward to trying out Subconscious and the #Noosphere protocol later this year.

I’m hoping for some capabilities around backlinks / linking / aggregation of terms that we haven’t seen since the pre-spam Technorati years.

Excellent overview by David Sloan Wilson of Teilhard de Chardin’s work on evolution and the concept of the Noosphere. https://d3ngex8q79bk55.cloudfront.net/evo-uploads/user/48617/post/new/Reintroducing%20Pierre%20Teilhard%20de%20Chardin%20to%20modern%20evolutionary%20science.pdf. #noosphere #evolution

A interesting and well produced collection of videos about the Noosphere.

https://www.youtube.com/@HumanEnergyIO/videos

Quite thought provoking and inspiring.

#noosphere #evolution #Community

@FrankPasquale ⬆️

So the #Noosphere is an imagined #Hyperloop above Earth 🌎 connecting #SovietZombie 🧟‍♂️ fascists in #Russia to #HighTech fascists in #SiliconValley and #Texas ?

#SaveAmerica from cults and #DoNotCollaborateWithFascists !