From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Early comments[edit]

If you can write an article about Raymond's Homesteading the Noosphere, please go ahead and do so. I've tried reading the whole thing and found it too hard to follow. How about summarizing it in a new Wikipedia article to be called Homesteading the Noosphere, please? --Ed Poor

Thanks, Brion. --Ed Poor
I read it when it first came out and it seemed to make some kind of sense at the time, but I don't remember the details too clearly. I'll try to expand the stub when I get a chance to reread. --Brion VIBBER

(cur) (last) . . 13:26, 31 Mar 2004 . . David Gerard (rv Vogelspam (the noosphere is not about white separatism))

That is right, David, the "noosphere" is related to cosmotheism, and white separatism ,alone, is NOT what cosmotheism itself, is really all about, whatsoever! (rv POV Gerardspam)

I removed the "nousphere" spelling. I've never seen it spelled that way, and Google has 100 references for it versus 137,000 for noosphere. Isidore 19:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I put it back because it is a redirect to this page, if you want to get nousphere removed, then get the redirect vfd'ed. According to the Wikipedia:manual of style, all alternative names should appear in the opening paragraph bolded. I don't care if the word stays or goes, I am just following the rules. --metta, The Sunborn 21:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about a little blurb on pronunciation?

A second for that. The Greek pronunciation would suggest "nus" with a long U, but "noetic" suggests a double long "O" as in German.  ???

The "History of Concept" section[edit]

There are two different umlaut'ed spellings of the word: 'noösphere' and 'nöosphere'. Which one is right? --Dave.massive 15:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The "See Also" section[edit]

This section seems to be a bit cluttered with all sorts of references that are only marginally relevant. I think we ought to establish some criteria for what belongs there; Noosphere should not be treated as a catch-all phrase for any sort of "new age" material that someone wants to promote (like, for example, the Blood Music film.) --HK 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How about: the linked article must contain the term "noosphere". — goethean 23:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, that would certainly pare down the list a bit. --HK 23:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The folowing sentence could use some elaboration. A somewhat different approach focuses on "sustainability," and begins to look at this concept in terms of "co-evolution" [Norgaard, 1994]. -- 06:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing memetics category[edit]

I am removing the memetics category from this article since you learn no more about the article's contents from the category and v.v. Since so many things may be memes we should try to keep the category closely defined in order to remain useful. Hope you're okay with that. The link to meme would be enough I suggest. Facius 17:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


Nousphere: Is a notion offered by Tielhard de Chardin, Jesuit Priest and world renowned anthrapologist, he referred to the biosphere as sphere of life, lithosphere as sphere of rock, and nousphere as sphere of thought. Some would have it that the web is a practical expression of de Chardin's nousphere, but this is far to simplistic for what he intended, best see it as the tenuous framework of thought linking people in societies, and now via the web, does link people across social boundaries. Nousphere is perhaps best expressed as Popper's World III which is a less spiritual idea but nonetheless a sharp and profound expression of the idea behind the nousphere. I am sure Popper and de Chardin would have found much in common. Nousphere could be seen as the core of culture, carried forward via Poppers World III, and existing beyond any individual, forming the glue of the society binding people together today, and binding generations together. I see the nousphere as humankind's rudder, giving ideological and moral direction. It is a rudder influecing all but influenced by only the few. Graham Little —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unraveling the secrets behind the noosphere[edit]

I was reading the book "Apocalypse 2012" by Lawrence E. Joseph and a thought sprang to my mind. How exactly does our brain work? We know that the brain transmits messages and conveys memories for every individual through electrical currents conducted in our nervous system. If so, and if the noosphere theory holds true to any degree, would it be possible that the electrical currents flowing through our head everyday is the door to the Noosphere? Lets put it this way. The brain is a blind man feeling around to recognize his environment and the electrical currents running through the brain is the blind man's hands. The Noosphere is, thus, the enivronment. As the current cuts through the noosphere as it travels through the brain, it picks up information and the brain interprets them into memory and sorts. This "Blind Man Theory", as i coin it, could this be how our brain really function? Where no one has their own memory but in place a collective, contributed well of memory where individuals tap into? If so, the potential of this noosphere will be overwhelming as we seek to unlock them. Keng Yeow —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


This reads like an essay. (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the noosphere will in due course comprise those minds or psyches that have become Self-realised (i.e. Enlightened), and may become a self-reinforcing field of such awareness hopefully leading to the explosion de Chardin wrote about, when all human beings realise experientially what they are in Spiritual terms. (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


Current article is atrocious and reads as if multiple editors contributed a single word. Oh, wait... Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin of term[edit]

It needs to be written where and by whom the term noosphere was first conceived, and why. It vaguely says that Verdansky had, but it needs to be made more precise. Does anyone know...? NittyG (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

< French noosphère (P. Teilhard de Chardin L'Hominisation (1925) in uvres (1957) III. 92) < ancient Greek NOUS n. + French sphère SPHERE n., after biosphère BIOSPHERE n.]

The part of the biosphere occupied by thinking humanity; spec. (with reference to the writing of P. Teilhard de Chardin) a stage or sphere of evolutionary development characterized by (the emergence or dominance of) consciousness, the mind, and interpersonal relationships, postulated as following the stage of the establishment of human life. Also fig.

1930 Jrnl. Philos. 27 499 This amounts to imagining, above the animal biosphere and continuing it, a human sphere, the sphere of reflection, of conscious and free invention, of thought strictly speaking, in short, the sphere of mind or noosphere. 1945 Amer. Scientist 33 9 There arises the problem of the reconstruction of the biosphere in the interests of freely thinking humanity as a single totality. This new state of the the noösphere. 1953 J. S. HUXLEY Evol. in Action iv. 110 It provides a new kind of environment for life to inhabit. It needs a name of its own: following Père Teilhard de Chardin, the French paleontologist and philosopher, I shall call it the nöosphere, the world of mind. 1970 Sci. Amer. Sept. 53/3 Just before his [sc. Vernadsky's] death..he wrote..‘I think that we undergo not only a historical, but a planetary change as well. We live in a transition to the noosphere.’ By noosphere Vernadsky meant the envelope of mind that was to supersede the biosphere. 1996 Wired May 158/1 We swim in imagination and bring the noosphere alive with collective consciousness.


That's a very up-to-date entry from the OED. However they don't indicate the author of the 1930 or 1945 works. What I've seen elsewhere is that Vernadsky created the concept, and de Chardin expanded its use. It'd be a good topic to research further.   Will Beback  talk  18:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it was Verdansky. He pretty much started everything and was Teilhard's idol in the matter. (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
i think it was chardin, since he wrote his essay 1923. i added references to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and secondary literature of the first occurrences of the term. also, i added google books links to it. anyone cares to join me in making this article better? also, we could take a look at references in other wikipedia versions (e.g. the german wikipedia) --F4nboy (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
see also this external link for a clarification -- here it states, that vernadsky "accepted" the "noosphere" by leRoy and Chardin; we would have to add leRoy as well! --F4nboy (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Relation to Noetic Theory?[edit]

It seems that the idea of a noosphere contributed to, or at least is related to, the study of noetics. Should there be a reference or even a section under noosphere about noetics? The Cap'n (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Possible Mechanism"[edit]

I find this section extremely hard to understand. Most of it looks like original research. Can anyone rewrite it in simpler terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan evr (talkcontribs) 00:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I logged in to make precisely the same point. It's badly written as well as being full of jargon. Even the heading:"Possible Mechanisms" is vague and unsatisfactory. The text makes much of "abstraction" considered in some special sense, but then does not define it. And the sentences are too long and clumsily put together. I am not sufficiently versed with the subject matter to rewrite it, but I know as an editor elsewhere that this material could be expressed a lot more clearly and made a good deal more accessible. Myles325a (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I found the section opaque. Even the heading is obscure. "Possible Mechanism" of/for what? The noosphere is a sphere of "thought" and by definition non-mechanical. CarlosChio (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Popular culture[edit]

The "in popular culture" section is now bigger than the rest of the actual article. Any objections to significantly pruning? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)