Thank you for republishing this - I like the way the article presents the noosphere as a 'thing' that to Bannon and his ilk (and Marx I suppose) is manipulated by force (whether the force is ideas or guns matters little if directed by a man's singular purpose). As I understand Teilhard and others, their manipulation is by ideas communicated to others through enlightened discursive education. Much easier to destroy than to build - but what does that say of our future?
I was disappointed to hear of the possibility that de Chardin was a racist, since I admire him and had never heard that. After reading the article in the first link below, along with the response to it by another de Chardin scholar, as well as the comments, I'm inclined to think (and hope) he wasn't. The thought that we could use eugenics to control our own evolution was novel and gaining popularity then, and not all eugenicists were racist. We're still interested in controlling our own evolution but modern ideas are more focused on gene therapy and the questions around merging with AI. Your analysis comparing and contrasting de Chardin's ideas with Bannon's are interesting, and prompted me to see what Bannon has been up to (2nd link). That story confirmed my impression that Steve Bannon is a smart man with an ego/narcissism equal to Trump's, which is why he can co-opt intelligent sounding ideas from others to support his assertions, and it also makes him very dangerous. It also reinforces my belief that ego and intent must always be examined when listening to anyone who seems "smart." IMO, that seems to be the largest contrast between these two men.
“But like Teilhard’s vision, Bannon’s noosphere of competing narratives leaves out its own crucial feature: the need to account for the non-narrative aspects of our political lives.”
Or, “You can’t drink narrative.”
I’ve watched with interest and, as a storyteller and amateur linguist, a certain amount of dismay, as the concept of “narrative” as a self-referential and all-encompassing reality has entered the politics of California water. A small group, led by a mercurial and magnetic and resentful player who’s finally reached the level of influence he’s so long desired, have been, to use a classic Bannonism, flooding the zone with ideological imperatives for so long that their projects and proposals have taken on the sheen of reality. They have effectively recast the discussion about water supply for an agency that supplies drinking water in whole or in part to 19 million Californians.
The media, especially the LA Times, have gotten behind them in this specific portrayal of reality as a contest between those responsible and pragmatic caretakers of the environment on one side (theirs) and cynical, anachronistic, obstructionist fools.
The rest of us, which is probably 95% of the actual people involved, are watching this happen with a kind of mystified helplessness that reminds me of the Democratic party the last 15 years (in fact there are several corollaries to the DNC that I find funny/depressing/interesting that are too much for this comment space)—except for a very small few of us, who say things like “you can recycle water you don’t have” and “you can’t drink narrative.”
Matthew reported that Jesus said that man can’t live on bread alone, but rather also needs the Word of God. *Every* word that proceeds from His mouth. I find that we’re in the other side of the mirror here, that Bannon and his Trumpian inspirations, and the SoCal water conjurers, are asking us to live on the Word alone.
Excellently done! It's non-normative, and it's all the more substantial and more convincing for it. It's right to the point and spot on. There is a rational way to discuss the water issue that neither the left nor the right is doing. In the spirit of Hoffer's "The True Believer," both Bannon and his denouncers have more in common than they want to admit. This assertion is verifiable by a systematic analysis of words and deeds.
My day has been rocked by the juxtaposition of Teilhard de Chardin and Steve Bannon. Fascinating thought provoking piece, thanks
Thank you for republishing this - I like the way the article presents the noosphere as a 'thing' that to Bannon and his ilk (and Marx I suppose) is manipulated by force (whether the force is ideas or guns matters little if directed by a man's singular purpose). As I understand Teilhard and others, their manipulation is by ideas communicated to others through enlightened discursive education. Much easier to destroy than to build - but what does that say of our future?
Great piece, thank you
Now I have to go find that interview.
I hope nobody is scared off of the idea of a Noosphere, i’m still pushing for the first step, a database of public opinion.
I was disappointed to hear of the possibility that de Chardin was a racist, since I admire him and had never heard that. After reading the article in the first link below, along with the response to it by another de Chardin scholar, as well as the comments, I'm inclined to think (and hope) he wasn't. The thought that we could use eugenics to control our own evolution was novel and gaining popularity then, and not all eugenicists were racist. We're still interested in controlling our own evolution but modern ideas are more focused on gene therapy and the questions around merging with AI. Your analysis comparing and contrasting de Chardin's ideas with Bannon's are interesting, and prompted me to see what Bannon has been up to (2nd link). That story confirmed my impression that Steve Bannon is a smart man with an ego/narcissism equal to Trump's, which is why he can co-opt intelligent sounding ideas from others to support his assertions, and it also makes him very dangerous. It also reinforces my belief that ego and intent must always be examined when listening to anyone who seems "smart." IMO, that seems to be the largest contrast between these two men.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2023/08/09/teilhard-slattery-fernandez-gala-eugenics-245757
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/steve-bannon-civics-lessons-teaching-prison-trump-1235144548/
“But like Teilhard’s vision, Bannon’s noosphere of competing narratives leaves out its own crucial feature: the need to account for the non-narrative aspects of our political lives.”
Or, “You can’t drink narrative.”
I’ve watched with interest and, as a storyteller and amateur linguist, a certain amount of dismay, as the concept of “narrative” as a self-referential and all-encompassing reality has entered the politics of California water. A small group, led by a mercurial and magnetic and resentful player who’s finally reached the level of influence he’s so long desired, have been, to use a classic Bannonism, flooding the zone with ideological imperatives for so long that their projects and proposals have taken on the sheen of reality. They have effectively recast the discussion about water supply for an agency that supplies drinking water in whole or in part to 19 million Californians.
The media, especially the LA Times, have gotten behind them in this specific portrayal of reality as a contest between those responsible and pragmatic caretakers of the environment on one side (theirs) and cynical, anachronistic, obstructionist fools.
The rest of us, which is probably 95% of the actual people involved, are watching this happen with a kind of mystified helplessness that reminds me of the Democratic party the last 15 years (in fact there are several corollaries to the DNC that I find funny/depressing/interesting that are too much for this comment space)—except for a very small few of us, who say things like “you can recycle water you don’t have” and “you can’t drink narrative.”
Matthew reported that Jesus said that man can’t live on bread alone, but rather also needs the Word of God. *Every* word that proceeds from His mouth. I find that we’re in the other side of the mirror here, that Bannon and his Trumpian inspirations, and the SoCal water conjurers, are asking us to live on the Word alone.
Excellently done! It's non-normative, and it's all the more substantial and more convincing for it. It's right to the point and spot on. There is a rational way to discuss the water issue that neither the left nor the right is doing. In the spirit of Hoffer's "The True Believer," both Bannon and his denouncers have more in common than they want to admit. This assertion is verifiable by a systematic analysis of words and deeds.