There’s a straight line IMO from HG Wells World Brain, Oliver Reiser’s Cosmic Humanism, to Buckminster Fuller’s Spaceship Earth, to SRI’s Changing Images of Man, to David Temple’s First Values First Principles of Evolving Perenialism.
Here’s a thread 🧵 tracing the intellectual through-line from planetary mind and collective intelligence to evolving humanism, incorporating Vernadsky and Teilhard de Chardin as foundational figures.
2/10
The Evolution of Planetary Consciousness: A Hidden Thread 🧵
A remarkable lineage of thinkers envisioned humanity evolving toward unified global mind, cosmic purpose, and conscious planetary stewardship.
From the Noosphere to CosmoErotic Humanism, here’s the through-line.
3/10
Édouard Le Roy, alongside Vladimir Vernadsky and Teilhard de Chardin, helped coin the term noosphere, conceptualizing it as Earth's thinking layer, a stage where human consciousness and knowledge become a dominant geological force, transforming the biosphere. Le Roy, a French philosopher and mathematician, saw this as humanity's collective mind shaping the planet, a concept later linked to cyberspace and the internet as its material manifestation, representing a new evolutionary stage of planetary development.
Vladimir Vernadsky (1920s–1940s) like Chardin was influenced by Edouard Le Roy, was a Russian scientist who defined the biosphere — life transforming the planet — and foresaw the noosphere: a sphere of human thought enveloping Earth, where collective reason guides evolution.
The seed of planetary mind.
4/10
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Jesuit paleontologist) spiritualized it.
In The Phenomenon of Man (1955), he described evolution converging toward the Omega Point — a unified global consciousness.
The noosphere becomes a sacred emergence of love and complexity.
5/10
H.G. Wells (1938) secularized the dream in World Brain.
He called for a permanent world encyclopedia — a networked planetary knowledge system to organize human affairs and prevent catastrophe.
Early vision of collective intelligence as governance.
6/10
Oliver Reiser fused science and mysticism in Cosmic Humanism (1960s–70s).
He explicitly built on Vernadsky and Chardin, locating the “world brain” in Earth’s electromagnetic fields.
Humanity must integrate into a cosmic whole — scientific pantheism meets global unity.
7/10
Buckminster Fuller made it practical with Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (1969).
Earth is a finite spacecraft; we need comprehensive design science to manage resources synergistically.
Implicit noospheric stewardship — humanity as crew of one ship.
8/10
The 1974 (final edition published in 1984) SRI report Changing Images of Man (Markley & Harman) synthesized these threads.
It explored how society’s self-image must evolve — toward transpersonal, ecological, evolutionary consciousness (directly citing Chardin).
A blueprint for intentional cultural transformation.
9/10
Today, David J. Temple (collective pseudonym, primarily Marc Gafni & Zak Stein) extends it in First Principles and First Values (2024).
CosmoErotic Humanism: evolving perennialism that roots intimacy, value, and purpose in Reality itself — responding to the meta-crisis with shared story and a new anthro-ontology that rewrites the story of the universe transforming Homo sapiens into Homo Amor. open.substack.com/pub/courtenayt…
10/10
The through-line:
Biosphere → Noosphere → World Brain → Cosmic Humanism → Spaceship Earth → Transformative Image of Man → Evolving CosmoErotic Humanism.
A century-long arc toward conscious planetary evolution.
We’re living inside this unfolding.
They want us to co-create the super-organism of humanity where we’re all nodes connected via SMART villages, Network States, using the IoT, IoE that with 6g will create digital twinning and socio-technical cyber-physical systems where we are all cybernetically nudged in a tokenized, gamified techno feudal world that is transhuman leading to post-human technological singularity!!! Is this a world you want???
(Amazon links to all the books are above!☝️).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I called my friend @JamieLHanshaw because I didn't want to walk into the material alone.
The book: six hundred pages on the Dalai Lama's tradition by two Germans who were insiders before they read the source texts and couldn't unsee what they found.
Then I opened the federal Epstein files.
🧵
The authors — "Victor and Victoria Trimondi" — are pseudonyms for Herbert and Mariana Röttgen. He ran one of the most influential publishing houses in postwar Germany. They were insiders. They hosted the Dalai Lama. They organized inter-religious dialogues.
Then they read the source texts and wrote 600 pages against the tradition they were inside.
In 1992, at Mind & Life Dialogue IV in Dharamsala, the Dalai Lama personally walked Western neuroscientists through:
— A retention technique involving inserting a straw into the urethra
— A four-class anatomical classification of consorts by the shape of their genitals
He made a joke about yaks.
It's in the published transcript. Varela, 1997, pages 172-173.
🚨Warning About MAHA – It’s Really MABA in Disguise (Make America Biotech Accelerate)🚨
🧵1/12
Friends, I've been sounding the alarm on this – long before Trump even took office again. I warned that RFK Jr. could be a Trojan Horse for AI-driven precision medicine and the full-on biodigital convergence agenda. Now, with MAHA rolling out and RFK’s Jr’s statements on MABA and wearables, my concerns are proving to be on target.
🧵2/12
The message of Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) sounds wonderful on the surface – clean, real food, regenerative agriculture, less toxic chemicals, and pushing back against Big Pharma's pill-pushing empire. We SHOULD all advocate for that! True health freedom starts with sovereignty over our bodies and what we put in them.
🧵3/12
But here's the red flag: They're not just stopping Big Pharma – they're replacing it with something far more insidious: mass adoption of wearables as the "key" to MAHA. RFK Jr. himself said he wants every American wearing a wearable within four years, with massive HHS ad campaigns pushing them.
🧵Thread on Joscha Bach & Evolutionary Dynamics: From AI Visions to Shocking Epstein Ties 🧠🤖💥 1/8 🚨 Breaking: Joscha Bach, ex-MIT Media Lab & Harvard evolutionary dynamics whiz, is back in the spotlight amid explosive Epstein email leaks. With a PhD in cognitive science, Bach’s work probes how minds evolve as computational beasts. His Harvard gig? Modeling evolution in complex systems. Dive into his bio: edge.org/memberbio/josc…
2/8 In his 2015 Edge.org response to "What Do You Think About Machines That Think?", Bach drops a bomb: AI won't just match us—it'll eclipse human intelligence by solving the mind's puzzle piecemeal, scaling far beyond biology's limits. Planes outfly birds; AI will outthink us in speed, accuracy, and scope. Link: edge.org/response-detai…
3/8 Bach ties this to evolutionary dynamics: Intelligence is a tool for goal-reaching, forged in primate survival hacks, but stripped of inherent motives in machines. Creators imprint their intent—benevolent orgs birth helpful AI; destructive ones, digital nightmares. His chilling line? "Every society will get the Artificial Intelligence it deserves." Echoes Darwin in silicon: Tech evolves with our flaws or fixes.
Michel Foucault, a central figure in post-structuralism, engaged extensively with Neo-Kantian philosophy, which revived and reinterpreted Immanuel Kant's ideas in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, emphasizing epistemology, logic, and the construction of knowledge without direct reference to an empirical "thing in itself" (the noumenon or Ding an sich).
His early work, including lectures in the 1950s on Kant's transcendental subject and his 1961 doctoral thesis introduction to Kant's Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, critically analyzed Kantian themes like enlightenment, reason, and the limits of human knowledge. Foucault's archaeology of knowledge, as seen in The Order of Things (1966) and The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969) amzn.to/3Jclk59, adopts Neo-Kantian anti-realism—treating objects of knowledge as produced through discursive formations rather than as given realities—drawing indirectly from the Marburg School (e.g., Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp) via French sociology, phenomenology, and thinkers like Ernst Cassirer.
This influence manifests in his concept of the "episteme," a historical a priori structuring what counts as valid knowledge, akin to Neo-Kantian notions of "validity" (Geltung) and the infinite task of producing meaning through regional sciences. Later, Foucault shifted toward genealogy, incorporating Nietzschean power dynamics while retaining Neo-Kantian bracketing of empirical reality.
Foucault's engagement with Neo-Thomist Catholic Scholasticism—a 19th-20th century revival of Thomas Aquinas's medieval philosophy integrated with Catholic theology—is more indirect and methodological. He did not directly critique Neo-Thomism, but his analyses of power, particularly pastoral power in lectures like those in 1975-1976, examine religious institutions and confessional practices as mechanisms of governance, drawing parallels to Scholastic traditions of authority and reason.
Scholars have applied Foucault's historical methodology to Scholastic thought, as in Philipp W. Rosemann's Understanding Scholastic Thought with Foucault (1999) (I'll post a link for that book below 👇), which uses Foucauldian concepts like the "episteme" and the "Outside" to analyze medieval intellectual culture, binaries (e.g., mythos/logos, Christian folly vs. Greek wisdom), and practices like university methods and manuscript transmission.
Jacques Derrida, known for deconstruction, also rooted his work in Neo-Kantian traditions, particularly through indirect influences from the Marburg School via structuralism, phenomenology, and French Neo-Kantians like Léon Brunschvicg. His concept of différance—an originary delay that defers presence and meaning—echoes Cohen's notion of "origin" (Ursprung) as an infinite productive task, banishing ontology in favor of textual constitution of the world. Derrida's grammatology, as a science of writing producing ideal objects, draws from Husserl's Origin of Geometry (interpreted in Neo-Kantian terms) and Saussure's linguistics, reversing speech/writing hierarchies while emphasizing validity independent of empirical context.
This anti-realist stance, where "there is no outside-text," aligns with Marburg's focus on discursive production and ethical intersubjectivity, later extended in his ethics influenced by Levinas and Scheler.
Derrida's ties to Neo-Thomist Catholic Scholasticism are subtler, often through theological and phenomenological lenses rather than direct critique. His work on gift, hospitality, and negative theology engages Christian motifs, positioning him as a "theologian" in some interpretations, with deconstruction challenging metaphysical binaries akin to Scholastic debates on faith and reason.
Phenomenology's connections to Neo-Thomism (e.g., via Husserl and Heidegger) inform Derrida's lifelong dialogue with these thinkers, critiquing modernity while echoing Thomist concerns with essence and existence. However, direct engagements are limited, with scholars noting parallels in his political philosophy and critiques of presence that resonate with Catholic intellectual traditions.
Both Foucault and Derrida were instrumental in shaping Continental Philosophy (I previously did a long thread on that which I can link as well plus a substack article on it), a broad tradition encompassing phenomenology, existentialism, structuralism, and post-structuralism, originating in 19th-20th century Europe and emphasizing historical context, subjectivity, and critiques of metaphysics over analytic precision.
Foucault's genealogies of power, knowledge, and institutions (e.g., in Discipline and Punish and History of Sexuality) attempted to deconstruct Enlightenment rationality, revealing how discourses produce subjects and norms. Derrida's deconstruction interrogated binary oppositions and logocentrism, influencing literary theory, ethics, and politics by showing how meaning is deferred and contingent. Their Neo-Kantian-inflected anti-realism enhanced Continental Philosophy's focus on historicity, power, and the limits of reason, bridging earlier thinkers like Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Husserl, and Heidegger.
Paleo-Conservatism, an American strain of conservatism emphasizing tradition, Christian ethics, nationalism, regionalism, and limited government, draws indirectly from Continental Philosophy's conservative dispositions, which critique Enlightenment universalism and modernity. Originating in the Counter-Enlightenment (e.g., Vico, Herder, de Maistre), this tradition influenced 19th-20th century Continental thought through Romanticism, Lebensphilosophie, and Nietzsche, fostering anti-liberal, anti-egalitarian views in the "conservative revolution" (e.g., Moeller van den Bruck, Jünger).
Foucault and Derrida's postmodern critiques of power, truth, and metaphysics provided tools for challenging liberal managerialism and universal standards, which paleo-conservatives adapted to oppose globalism and cultural relativism. Thinkers like Leo Strauss, influenced by Continental antimodernism (e.g., Heidegger, Schmitt), migrated these ideas to U.S. conservatism, emphasizing human finitude, tradition, and community over individual rights, aligning with paleo-conservative skepticism of neoconservatism and liberal internationalism.
Post-Liberalism, a contemporary critique of liberalism from both left and right, emerges from Continental Philosophy's challenges to universalism, progress, and relativism, advocating rooted communities, custom, and cultural specificity. Its origins trace to the Frankfurt School's Dialectic of Enlightenment (Horkheimer and Adorno), which Foucault and Derrida extended by exposing liberalism's totalitarian tendencies through discursive power and deconstruction of norms. Continental figures like Schmitt (nomos of the earth, friend-enemy distinction), Heidegger (radical conservatism), and the conservative revolution provide frameworks for post-liberal emphases on sovereignty, geopolitics, and anti-legalism, rejecting Kantian imperatives and Enlightenment materialism in favor of spiritual "care for the soul" (Patočka). British post-liberalism draws from these sources, critiquing liberalism's "forgetting" of customary law and promoting value creation over profit, influencing movements like the alt-right and illiberal states. Thus, Foucault and Derrida's contributions to Continental critiques of modernity fueled post-liberalism's renaissance on the right, shifting from left-leaning postmodernism to conservative applications.
🧵 1/25: 🚨EXPOSED: The "Game B" Conspiracy – A Trojan Horse for Technocracy, Transhumanism, & Elite Control! Funded by Epstein, rooted in eugenics, & amplified by the Intellectual Dark Web. This isn't sci-fi—it's the blueprint for rewriting humanity. Buckle up! #GameB #Epstein #Transhumanism
2/25: It all starts with the Weinstein brothers' "last questions" in 2018 via the Edge Foundation. Bret asks: "Can humans set a non-evolutionary course that's game theoretically stable?"— escape evolutionary traps? Eric: "Does something unprecedented happen when we finally learn our own source code?"— What if we hack our own "source code"? Sounds utopian, but it's a veil for "conscious evolution"—elite-driven redesign of society & biology. 😱
3/25: Game B origins trace to Santa Fe Institute (SFI), where Epstein donated $275K. Jim Rutt (ex-chair) & Jordan Hall (ex-trustee) birthed it post-2008 crisis. Early talks with Weinsteins on "Economic Manhattan Project." From think tanks to "civilizational redesign"—but who's really pulling strings?
🧵1/21 🚨 WAKE UP THREAD: Three seemingly separate movements are converging to create the most dangerous techno-feudal empire in human history. What I've been warning about for YEARS is happening NOW. Let me break down what they don't want you to see...
2/21 🎭 First, meet GAME~B: Marketed as a "new civilizational operating system" for human flourishing, it's actually a Hegelian dialectic trap. They say Game A (current reality) is "rivalrous" and doomed, so we MUST transition to their collectivist "anti-fragile" utopia
3/21 💭 But here's the trick: Game~B doesn't exist yet. It's pure theory. Meanwhile, they plan to "extract the technology" from our current system (Game A) to build their paradise. How is taking our technology NOT extractive? Classic doublespeak.