Discussion 1

David Ronfeldt:

Introduction

David Ronfeldt:

"It’s one thing to describe the noosphere by itself. It’s something else to decide on a perspective — better yet, a framework — to guide how best to understand and use the concept. Over the years, I’ve seen three perspectives used to focus people’s attention:

• A mono-sphere perspective that focuses solely on the noosphere. • A two-sphere perspective that also emphasizes the biosphere. • A tri-sphere perspective that emphasizes the geosphere as well.

Each has different philosophic and scientific implications for understanding the noosphere, as well as for prioritizing what theorists and strategists should focus on. While I began my own work with a mono-sphere perspective, I am now fully in favor of the third perspective — a whole-earth multi-sphere perspective.

I offer my overview with that predilection in play.

• Insufficiency of the mono-spheric approach to framework building

Most introductory write-ups about the noosphere focus almost entirely on the noosphere as a distinct realm. They note that the noosphere is layered atop and linked to two older realms, our planet’s geosphere and biosphere. Yet the overall perspective is centered around the noosphere as a distinct entity — the geo- and biosphere barely get mentioned afterwards.

This approach has great value as a way to begin learning about the noosphere, and the best write-ups are essential readings. Moreover, it can be adapted to suit any philosophical, spiritual, ideological, or other value-orientation that a pro-noosphere actor may wish to use (for a recent example, watch Trippi, 2026). But the more one becomes aware of the two earlier spheres, and the more they are brought into the vision, then the more a narrowly noo-centric approach feels insufficient, lacking.

• Deficiencies of the two-sphere approach to framework-building

A better approach — currently the leading one for scientists who study biological and social evolution and/or who wonder whether a collective consciousness or global mind may arise — emphasizes two spheres: the biosphere and the noosphere (with nods to the geosphere). The two spheres are viewed as conjoined entities, with activities in the biosphere generating the noosphere as Teilhard and Vernadsky theorized. Accordingly, living organisms evolved first in biological terms, then in societal terms, in a progression from simple to evermore complex entities. What’s now emerging from evolution are “superorganisms” — sets of multiple individual organisms that happen to bond and behave collectively as one big organism with a group mind, for example like an ant colony, free-trade system, religious movement, or even Earth itself.

This two-sphere perspective leads to believing that the noosphere itself is a kind of superorganism. Accordingly, “the Noosphere can be seen as the rise of a planetary superorganism integrating all geological, biological, human, and technological activities into a new level of planetary functioning” (Vidal, 2021) — or, as Kevin Kelly (2023) puts it, “a planetary super-organism with autonomy.” Thus the noosphere emerges from life in the biosphere by way of human activities and technologies, then increasingly develops a life of its own — metaphorically in some accounts, quite literally in others.

The two-sphere superorganism perspective dates from Teilhard’s writings in the 1940s. He did not say “superorganism” — he wrote in French — but the words he used for the noosphere, like l’organisme collectif (collective organism) and super-cerveau (super-brain), are often translated as “superorganism.” Today, this two-sphere superorganism perspective dominates Human Energy’s approach. It’s also prominent in much of the best current theorizing about the noosphere. Plus, in keeping with Teilhard’s views as a Catholic priest, it extends into spiritual views of the noosphere, notably via the concept of Christogenesis (Delio, 2023)

Most superorganism theorists are careful to note it’s a metaphorical or analogical idea. Hence, “[t]he issue here … is not so much whether human society is a superorganism in the strict sense, but in how far it is useful to model society as if it were an organism” (Heylighen, 2007). Nonetheless, viewing the noosphere as though it were organic and lifelike, if not alive in some sense, seems to be an irresistible lure, especially for the more spiritual theorists, including theologians.

The two-sphere (biosphere + noosphere) perspective has attractive advantages over the mono-sphere perspective. It’s good at calling attention to Darwinian concepts and processes that explain the biosphere’s evolution and that now appear to be propelling the noosphere toward a “major evolutionary transition” (MET). It has also brought expertise on complexity theory, network theory, living-systems theory, and cybernetics into studies about the noosphere. Plus, it has raised crucial questions about how conflict-competition-cooperation dynamics figure in evolution, and whether ways can be found to guide evolutionary change in ethical directions so that the noosphere becomes a pro-social superorganism.

I favor all that. But I’m also wary of the two-sphere perspective for both theoretical and strategic reasons.

Despite its proponents’ efforts to caveat and qualify their views, the superorganism analyses I’ve read (notably, Wilson & Sober, 1989; Richerson & Boyd, 1999; Heylighen, 2007; Stewart, 2019, 2020; Delio, 2023; and Vidal, 2024, 2026a) tend to be too “leapy” and linear, hierarchical, organismic, single-mindedly focused on cooperation, vulnerable to ideological manipulation, and more biospheric more noospheric in their details:

— Too “leapy” and linear: After decrying the lack of organismic (human) cooperation in the present, they leap ahead to postulating massive super-organismic cooperation in the future, without much attention to steps in-between.. Their long-range forecasts funnel toward a super-cooperative world directed by a singular planetary governance system endowed with universal ethical principles for guiding intentional evolution. Some contend that there will be only one all-unifying all-encompassing superorganism in the end.

Possibilities are neglected that various separate competing if not conflicting superorganisms may populate the world and its noosphere, or that a dominant superorganism might split into smaller superorganisms who become rivals. A claim that there can be only one global organization at a time reads more like absolutist fantasy than grounded theory.

Meanwhile, the likelihood of separate superorganisms competing far into the future has grown since China’s rise as a great power. Disagreements have also grown over what values are universal and who gets to define and assert them.

— Too hierarchical: Hierarchies receive more positive emphasis than any other form of organization. Nearly every actor (organism) is seen as part of a larger superorganism that is structured according to “nested hierarchies” (i.e., like Russian Matryoshka dolls). Nested hierarchies exist, but so do nested markets, nested networks, etc. All these forms of organization figure in societal evolution; counterparts exist in biological organisms too (Ronfeldt, 1996, 2008). They’re all essential — all will surely figure in noospheric evolution as well. Except for occasional nods to networks as design options, noosphere-as-superorganism perspectives have neglected them. Instead, they keep analyzing organismic evolution according to increases in levels (i.e., hierarchies) of complexity — as in progressions from single to multicellular organisms, from early tribal societies to modern nation-states, with a global noosphere next in this hierarchical ascent.

Problem is, this approach has neglected attending to the lateral rise of new forms of complexity, without which there cannot be new levels. MET theory that relies on multilevel selection (MLS) theory would work much better if augmented with knowledge that multiform variation and/or multilateral selection matters equally, and that these forms come in more varieties than hierarchy (Ronfeldt, 2023a).

— Too organismic: Focusing on organisms keeps this perspective intent on analyzing societies and the noosphere as though they contain structural-functional equivalents of biological systems and their anatomical organs.

While somewhat illuminating, this emphasis on internal organs has two downsides:

(1) It presumes the noosphere will develop “organs” when it may not do so any more than the geosphere has. This detracts from analyzing the noosphere in terms of “forms” or other categories that may provide a better basis than “organs” for organizational analysis. Moreover, the organismic approach may be wrong biologically. The noosphere appears to be emerging more like a fungus network — with a “fungal mind” — than a human anatomy (Ronfeldt, 2023b). As fungus networks involving mycelia and mycorrhiza spread underground from tree to tree in forests, they provide a kind of decentralized information and communications system, even energy conduits, in support of the entire forest. For understanding the noosphere, the fungal model looks potentially more apt as metaphor and science than does the super-organismic model.

(2) In focusing on organs, the two-sphere perspective has overlooked processes in the geosphere, a non-living system, that recurred in the biosphere, and seem bound to recur in the noosphere next. One process is bonding. The capacities of entities (atomic elements, minerals, genes, ideas, whatever) to bond with each other figures mightily in all areas of evolution. Another process is pulsing — a rhythmic expansion-contraction that keeps stuff (liquids, gasses, ideas, whatever) flowing in ways that generate energy, innovation, etc., or their loss. Organismic living-systems theory, as presently designed, says almost nothing about bonding or pulsing processes. Yet the noosphere’s emergence is already noticeably rife with them.

— Too focused on control problems: Most theorists view evolution toward higher levels of complexity as a process that requires constantly coming up with new forms and levels of control, say to be rid of free riders and “bad actors,” or to assure that sub-systems coordinate better. Theorists who work on the growth of superorganisms, the noosphere, and AI systems seem constantly preoccupied with control problems. It’s understandable since most are steeped in cybernetics — a field long defined as a science of “communication and control.”

In contrast, the periodic need for decontrol — a sensible letting-go of something in order to improve a system’s performance — has never been a concern. Yet, as I’ve long argued (e.g., Ronfeldt, 2023d), decontrol processes are as important as control processes for societal evolution — for example when a state learns to cease dominating an economy so a market system can emerge, or an MET results in differentiation and the addition of a new system or sub-system. The noosphere’s growth is bound to generate decontrol as well as control problems. The superorganism model is biased toward recognizing only control problems.

A new field of science may be needed as an adjunct or sub-field of cybernetics: a science of decontrol. It would help if cybernetics were defined, in keeping with its ancient Greek root kubernêtikê (“art of steering, piloting”), hence less in terms of “communications and control” and more as “the art of governance” (see Vidal, 2026b, p. 15).

— Too fixed on cooperation: The superorganism perspective usually comes with narrow views of the conflict-competition-cooperation spectrum. Superorganism analyses tend to say that cooperation will displace conflict and competition over the long run. Except for occasional caveats, they generally ignore or downplay prospects that intense competition and conflict may occur, and that evolutionary selection processes may not favor cooperation as they assume. They are optimistic about building new ways to guide selection according to universal values. They uphold expectations that the noosphere’s emergence can be made to proceed with more cooperation, and with less conflict and competition, than characterized the biosphere’s evolution.

Emphasizing cooperation is understandable if improving cooperation is the goal. But if improving our understanding of the noosphere is the goal, then balanced attention to possibilities across the entire conflict-competition-cooperation spectrum would seem more advisable.

— Too vulnerable to ideological manipulation by autocrats: Bygone totalitarian dictators have used organismic theories of social evolution to justify brutally cleansing and centralizing their societies. As Clément Vidal (2024) shows, “the powerful language of organicism has been used to motivate and justify the worst atrocities and totalitarian systems in human history (Nazism, Stalinism or Italian Fascism).”

There is a good rejoinder to this in the claim that such dictators relied on archaic ideas about the nature of organisms. Updated cybernetic ideas show that healthy organisms have feedback mechanisms and decentralized sub-systems that seem more in tune with democratic than dictatorial ideas. Thus, “[a]lthough this image may raise worries about a totalitarian system that restricts individual initiative, the superorganism model points in the opposite direction, towards increasing freedom and diversity” (Heylighen, 2007).

But I’m far from sure about this rejoinder. Many future superorganism scenarios still look awfully controlling, integralist, fusionist, unitary, and hegemonic. Indeed, Vladimir Putin is already a fan of how the noosphere and noocracy (rule by a knowing elite) can benefit Russia’s future.

— Too biospheric: The two-sphere perspective, in being so organismic, keeps leading back to further discussions about the nature of the biosphere, more than forward to insightful new formulations about the noosphere. Moreover, in giving short shrift to the geosphere, the two-sphere perspective projects the noosphere’s prospects mainly according to biological theory. It does not notice that the noosphere’s evolution may differ from biological evolution as much as biological evolution has differed from geological evolution — even though common evolutionary principles may apply across all three spheres.

In sum, the noosphere-as-superorganism perspective has stimulated welcome attention to the noosphere for decades. It has helped create a lively community of interest with a large professional constituency. It has advanced our understanding of the noosphere’s nature and prospects. If criticisms like those I list above are deemed correct, then proponents of the two-sphere perspective could surely address them in ways that improve it (e.g., per Wilson, 2026). Thus the two-sphere perspective may still have a lot of “life” left in it — it’s likely to persist if a more sensible alternative does not materialize.

Even so, it would still be a perspective that seeks to understand the noosphere in primarily biological terms, with complexity and cybernetic theory added in. This means it would still overlook a lot. It has advantages over the mono-sphere perspective in that it gets people thinking about evolution — but mainly only one kind of evolution, biological evolution. Without its current emphasis on the evolution of organismic life, this two-sphere perspective would lose sense as an approach to understanding and forecasting the noosphere’s growth.

My sense is that the two-sphere perspective has peaked. It’s being pushed too far — too much is being expected of it, and read into it. By now, it’s lacking and potentially misleading as a long-term basis for science and strategy. Something better is needed.

Besides, everything positive being applied within the two-sphere frame — evolution theory, complexity theory, cybernetics, etc. — can be applied just as readily within a tri-sphere perspective.

Advisability of a whole-earth tri-sphere perspective

Fortunately, a whole-earth multi-sphere perspective is beginning to take shape for understanding the noosphere and forecasting its evolution. It’s far from fully developed; and only a few proponents have touted it so far (Ronfeldt, 2022; Vidal, 2026b). It seems the best perspective around which to construct a framework, a direction that some Gaia proponents appear to be considering as well (Clarke, 2020; Gardels, 2025).

This perspective reflects the reality that the noosphere is one of a set of three peer spheres that constitute an integrated system, including the technosphere and sociosphere as layers that bridge between the bio- and noosphere. It should be clear by now that Earth’s geosphere, biosphere, and nascent noosphere interact and function conjointly. They comprise an entangled set consisting of a geosphere that long ago generated a biosphere that is now generating a noosphere — in turn, a noosphere whose growth can nurture a biosphere that still nurtures a geosphere, and vice-versa. Mutual generativity and co-nurturance look crucial not only for the initial emergence but also for the maturity of each and all three. This way, each layer’s maturation makes evolvability easier for the next — a point that may elude analysts relying on the simpler mono- and two-sphere perspectives.

At first glance, each sphere may appear to be distinctive; yet in reality they are deeply inextricably nested and invested in each other— bonded and bound. As Teilhard and Vernadsky said, after the geosphere developed, then the biosphere emerged as an extension of the geosphere, and now the noosphere is emerging as an extension of the biosphere. Only after emerging from the geosphere did the biosphere eventually become separate and independent enough to grow according to its own properties and dynamics, generating its own kinds of entities. The noosphere is next in this ages-old progression.

Viewing the three spheres as a conjoined interactive set — a holistic or holonic set — rather than as separate entities leads to asking questions that the mono- and two-sphere perspectives are not geared to asking, much less answering. For example, do similar evolutionary principles, formations, and processes characterize all three spheres? Does a common set of recurrent system dynamics attend the emergence and maturation of all three spheres? I sense the answer is “yes.” But far as I know, such questions have not yet been asked and answered for purposes of understanding and forecasting the noosphere’s nature.

What may be the most significant feature of a tri-sphere perspective is its amenability to the following hypothesis: If something significant — a formation, a process — appeared during the geosphere’s evolution, and later a structural-functional equivalent appeared during the biosphere’s evolution, then something structurally and/or functionally equivalent is likely to recur as the noosphere evolves. If that hypothesis holds up — if it proves valid as a theorem or maxim — it would spell a major analytical advantage that the tri-sphere perspective offers over the simpler mono- and two-sphere perspectives.

While I’ve called it a tri-sphere perspective for comparative purposes, a better concept is available. In many ways this geo-bio-noosphere complex corresponds to a triune holonic holosphere. That’s the best term I’ve found so far to describe the complex — per Arthur Koestler’s (1967) concept of a holon as “something that is simultaneously a whole in and of itself, as well as a part of a larger whole” (wording from Wikipedia). What looks advisable for science and strategy is to develop a holonic framework for understanding and forecasting the noosphere.

But first, before moving ahead with that, the next section relates what I have learned about the geosphere’s evolution in order be sure that a holonic tri-sphere perspective makes supreme sense."

FITTING THE GEOSPHERE INTO A NOOSPHERE PERSPECTIVE

"I’ve been eager for several years to try incorporating the evolution of Earth’s geosphere into a whole-earth multi-sphere framework for understanding the noosphere. But I’ve also been unschooled about geological evolution — as, I presume, are most other participants in the noosphere’s community of interest. Most of us are knowledgeable about biological evolution, and familiar with ideas that all forms of evolution may reflect universal laws and principles. Knowing much about geological evolution has simply not mattered to noosphere theorists so far.

Yet there is much about the geosphere’s evolution that may matter. Here’s the story I’ve learned that seems relevant to the purposes at hand.

Our planet’s eons of geological evolution is a story said to have begun in two major phases: first accretion, then differentiation. Eons of accretion, when little planetesimal rocks merged through gravitational compaction, were followed by eons of differentiation, when lighter and heavier substances drifted into forming layers. This initially resulted in our planet being little more than an orb with a uniform composition and a vast smooth molten surface. If conditions had remained that way, no further geological evolution would have ensued — the case with most orb’s elsewhere in the cosmos.

But then a remarkable series of events transpired: meteor bombardments, heat convections (convection currents), internal pressurizations; then more downward movements by heavier materials, and upward movements by lighter materials; followed by the onset of crystallization, mineralization, and speciation. All serving to create an oceanic crust, and later a continental crust atop tectonic plates — along with the beginnings of a liquid ocean and gaseous atmosphere. All sorts of different solids, liquids, and gases now co-existed in states of constant flux and flow (see Nawaz, 2019).

This radical reconfiguration of Earth’s surfaces and sub-surfaces meant it was now capable of prolonged geological evolution. Enough variety, commotion, and stickiness were present to assure that processes of differentiation, diversification, and complexification all got underway, along with other processes of creation, destruction, and renewal (Ronfeldt, 2025d).

Learning that geologists study differentiation especially sparked my interest, since it is a key concept in biological and societal evolution too. However, it means something specific to geologists: the geosphere’s primordial separation into layers, with heavier elements like iron below, and lighter ones like hydrogen and helium atop. Even so, that’s similar enough to what differentiation means in biology and sociology to further a sense that it’d be useful to develop a whole-earth multi-sphere framework on grounds that common principles and processes span all three spheres.

Professional studies of these matters began in earnest in the 18th and 19th centuries, when catastrophism and uniformitarianism (or gradualism) became the main views about how Earth came to be. At first, geologists subscribed mainly to catastrophism: the view that Earth’s geology took shape in phases, each marked by a sudden violent brief event, like an enormous eruption or flood — a view quite in keeping with Catholic and other Biblical views at the time. In contrast, uniformitarianism held that Earth’s geology resulted largely from very gradual changes over very long periods of time, according to natural laws and processes that remained the same all across time.

The uniformitarian (gradualism) view finally gained sway after publication of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology: Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation (3 vol., 1830-1833). His book is notable for inspiring Charles Darwin — he and Lyell became close friends, and Darwin was quite the geologist himself — to see that bit-by-bit speciation and selection could add up to transformative biological change over long periods of time. This was a radical view in the 19th century — and It’s curious to see that similar catastrophism-vs.-gradualism narratives are coursing their way through today’s debates about the future of AI.

Learning all this leads to two observations that favor adopting a whole-earth multi-sphere perspective for understanding the emergence of the noosphere:

1. Many concepts that scientists use to explain biological and social evolution also appear in accounts of geological evolution. Geology has plenty of specialized concepts that do not appear in biology or sociology; but many concepts — e.g., differentiation, speciation, complexification — are as central to geological as to biological and social evolution. This is so despite the fact that biological and social evolution are concerned with life-creating processes, like conscious adaptation and sexual reproduction, that do not figure in geological evolution. The geosphere may not be technically alive, but it’s still arguably autopoietic. Moreover, some scientific research on mineralization now shows that the creation of life was as much a geological as a biological phenomenon (Hazen et al., 2008).

2. Major evolutionary transitions (METs) appear in geological much as they do in biological and societal evolution. Remember, METs occur when new forms of organization and interaction arise amid a sphere’s existing entities, sparking new rounds of combination, differentiation, and (re)integration, thereby creating new entities that are more complex and higher-level than their antecedents. This progression from simple to evermore complex systems has long characterized biological and societal evolution. Evidently, much the same can be said about the evolution of Earth’s geosphere.

In sum, there are numerous reasons to regard the geosphere as a peer sphere of comparable evolutionary genesis, hence to include it along with the biosphere and noosphere as components of a geo-bio-noosphere complex that can be considered a holospheric or holonic set.

TOWARD A “HOLONIC FRAMEWORK” FOR NOOSPHERE ANALYSIS

Once a tri-sphere perspective is adopted, developing a holonic framework looks like the optimal way to proceed. As noted earlier, Koestler’s (1967) concept of a holon applies to the geo-bio-noosphere set as a whole and to each sphere by itself. Mihaela Ulieru’s (2014) recent concept of holonics provides further grounds for seeing that “every living entity is both an autonomous whole unto itself as well as part of a larger holistic system.” Ulieru refers to “living” entities, but at this point I include the geosphere in her framing, which she implicitly does anyway. In her words, which I quote at length,

“At its broadest scope, holonics is concerned with the evolution of the universe. The basic idea is that every living entity is both an autonomous whole unto itself as well as part of a larger holistic system. This perspective enables us to see certain recurring patterns of self-organization among interdependent natural systems at many different scales, from atomic levels to earthly physics, biology and ultimately to the Universe.

“In the 1960s the writer Arthur Koestler postulated that many biological and social organizations simultaneously display part/whole relationships. In other words, every entity is self-contained while concurrently existing as an individual member of a larger collective. Koestler proposed the term holon to describe the elements of these systems. This term is a combination of the Greek word holos, meaning “whole,” with the suffix on meaning “part,” as in proton or neuron. The term is meant to reflect the tendencies of holons to act as autonomous entities that also cooperate to form nested hierarchies of subsystems. The classic example is the nested hierarchy in biology of the cell, tissue, organ and system/organism. In this holarchy, as Koestler called it, each holon is a subsystem retaining the characteristic attributes of the whole system (Fig. 1a). What actually defines a holarchy is a purpose around which holons are clustered and subdivided in subholons, at several levels of resolution. Each entity (or holon) must act autonomously and cooperatively to achieve the goals of itself and of the wider system. …

“The greatest challenge facing any holonic system is “the whole in the part” dichotomy, which can be understood as a set of built-in, contradictory tensions. Individual systems (wholes) holons are animated to be autonomous and separate — yet they are also constrained as parts of the holarchy to work cooperatively with other holons towards the common goal around which the holarchy was formed. This duality of contradictory forces within a holarchy — between autonomy and cooperation — is reconciled and balanced via “holonic design rules” that define the functionality of systems of semi-autonomous holons. The rules enable and “regulate” the flows through which subsystems can adapt to changing demands facing the holarchy when dealing with problem-rich environments. The rules thus endow the disparate holons with interdependence and an enduring coherence: in essence, the structural capacity of the holarchy to integrate its various parts. A crucial feature of the rules is their capacity to coordinate with the local environment — that is, with other holons and subholarchies.” (Ulieru, 2014, pp. 114-115, 117-118)

That entire statement fits with how I understand the noosphere as part of a triadic set, a geo-bio-noosphere set, where each sphere is made of different stuff and is somewhat autonomous, yet all three are inextricably interdependent and similarly patterned. Plus, it’s a set where the evolution of all three, one after the other, appears to depend on a common set of recurrent system dynamics that repeat rather like a fractal process.

So I’m going to use the holon concept, and recommend others consider it too, as I push for developing a whole-earth multi-sphere framework for understanding the noosphere and its implications. As a Google Search AI Overview describes it, a “holonic framework is a structural approach to designing complex systems based on ‘holons’ — units that are simultaneously autonomous (self-reliant) and subordinate (part of a larger system).” That suits my tri-sphere conception just fine.

But I have a caveat. From Koestler through Ulieru, the holon and holonics concepts are largely about hierarchies — nested hierarchies, holonic hierarchies, holarchies. But the geo-bio-noosphere complex isn’t exactly a hierarchy. In a sense our geo-bio-noosphere world outranks the earlier geo-biosphere world, which outranked the primordial geosphere-only world — in a kind of hierarchical progression. But of the three spheres today, none really out-ranks another; none enjoys hegemony — they’re too fused and interdependent for that.

Holonics handles this by arguing that holarchies are different from standard hierarchies. But I still question its emphasis on hierarchy. Our planet’s geo-bio-noosphere complex is about networks too, sometimes more than hierarchies. So how about viewing its holospheric nature in terms of networks as well as hierarchies? Can there be forms of organization we might call “nested networks,” “holonic networks,” perhaps “holonets”? As it turns out, there can be. According to recent theorizing, holonic networks are an important information-age form of organization that has so far not been noticed by noologists. I discuss them at length later in this paper.

Another point: Markets are another major form of organization, alongside hierarchies and networks. While markets are normally only discussed as societal formations, some market-like dynamics also appear in geological and biological evolution, and they have already appeared in the noosphere. So why not also add “nested markets” to holonics’ conceptual repertoire?

Thus it seems to me that holonics still needs work as a methodology and framework. Nonetheless, it still seems more apt than the alternatives for viewing and analyzing the noosphere."

([1])

TOWARD A “HOLONIC FRAMEWORK” FOR NOOSPHERE ANALYSIS

David Ronfeldt:

"Once a tri-sphere perspective is adopted, developing a holonic framework looks like the optimal way to proceed. As noted earlier, Koestler’s (1967) concept of a holon applies to the geo-bio-noosphere set as a whole and to each sphere by itself. Mihaela Ulieru’s (2014) recent concept of holonics provides further grounds for seeing that “every living entity is both an autonomous whole unto itself as well as part of a larger holistic system.” Ulieru refers to “living” entities, but at this point I include the geosphere in her framing, which she implicitly does anyway. In her words, which I quote at length,