Perhaps more disturbing than Lovecraftian entities is the notion that a species might exist with enough power and foresight to not just fill a niche but to chisel and carve out a new form in the landscape/terrain; to alter physical reality on a grand scale with a plan, in recognition of a future species which will come to fill it and thrive there.
In other words, if I'm reading this correctly, species "fall into" niches but without any conscious choice, as if bound to the rules of a natural law. But, one can imagine a species (maybe us) smart or devious enough to alter the world such that there is a kind of choice, purposefully preparing a niche to inhabit in the future with a specific outcome built into it.
I'm no scientist. I just write some horror stories and I found this essay interesting with regard to speculative fiction. I always enjoy these essays.
Haven't had the chance to watch the linked video, so apologies if this is unhelpful, but I know that at least one thinker who developed similar ideas for levels of consciousness in book form was Ken Wilber, though my exposure to him was purely through this somewhat negative review by John Michael Greer: https://www.ecosophia.net/against-enchantment-i-ken-wilber/
(You might find that whole series interesting as an exploration of ways to conceptualize of the noosophere, or at least some of the major currents in it for the past few hundred years)
I’ve watched every one of hoe_math‘s videos almost since his channel started. It’s very interesting. I tend to think the issues he ascribes to women are far more equal between the sexes, with hypergamy only more prevalent among women more because they have more societal power. The psychological and societal analysis is on point. The problem I see, is that most people are (perhaps) not capable of developing themselves to the self-aware levels, and rely on society providing purpose for them, and maturing them into men/women through established pathways. Now that these pathways have broken down, we see that the masses are struggling to mature themselves, independently.
Social Engineers should be called “Noosmiths” from henceforth.
Also finding your consciousness niche is part of self actualization, but it requires a lot more humility than we’d like to admit. A “consciousness prey animal” sounds like a bad existence that’s lower status but the whole ecosystem (Noosystem? Psychosystem?) is necessary to support a healthy noosphere.
In the noospheric context every person is essential regardless of their cognitive capabilities or limits of their consciousness, but it feels “dirty” to suggest there are those who’s role is “burgerflipper”.
Perhaps more disturbing than Lovecraftian entities is the notion that a species might exist with enough power and foresight to not just fill a niche but to chisel and carve out a new form in the landscape/terrain; to alter physical reality on a grand scale with a plan, in recognition of a future species which will come to fill it and thrive there.
In other words, if I'm reading this correctly, species "fall into" niches but without any conscious choice, as if bound to the rules of a natural law. But, one can imagine a species (maybe us) smart or devious enough to alter the world such that there is a kind of choice, purposefully preparing a niche to inhabit in the future with a specific outcome built into it.
I'm no scientist. I just write some horror stories and I found this essay interesting with regard to speculative fiction. I always enjoy these essays.
Haven't had the chance to watch the linked video, so apologies if this is unhelpful, but I know that at least one thinker who developed similar ideas for levels of consciousness in book form was Ken Wilber, though my exposure to him was purely through this somewhat negative review by John Michael Greer: https://www.ecosophia.net/against-enchantment-i-ken-wilber/
(You might find that whole series interesting as an exploration of ways to conceptualize of the noosophere, or at least some of the major currents in it for the past few hundred years)
I’ve watched every one of hoe_math‘s videos almost since his channel started. It’s very interesting. I tend to think the issues he ascribes to women are far more equal between the sexes, with hypergamy only more prevalent among women more because they have more societal power. The psychological and societal analysis is on point. The problem I see, is that most people are (perhaps) not capable of developing themselves to the self-aware levels, and rely on society providing purpose for them, and maturing them into men/women through established pathways. Now that these pathways have broken down, we see that the masses are struggling to mature themselves, independently.
Social Engineers should be called “Noosmiths” from henceforth.
Also finding your consciousness niche is part of self actualization, but it requires a lot more humility than we’d like to admit. A “consciousness prey animal” sounds like a bad existence that’s lower status but the whole ecosystem (Noosystem? Psychosystem?) is necessary to support a healthy noosphere.
In the noospheric context every person is essential regardless of their cognitive capabilities or limits of their consciousness, but it feels “dirty” to suggest there are those who’s role is “burgerflipper”.