And here it is !
Cheers for that!
A brand new topic =)
I actually got a 2500word assignment to write about this topic in the concept of contemporary art. Due in a few weeks.
Nice, a few more posts and you can just cut and paste
For a brief moment I read as if you intended to rewrite this whole Thread as a piece of contemporary art.
Then I realised I should have been asleep quite a while ago!
and thanks for the split @Pilgrimsmaster!
No way, but I refine my argument based on the comments.
I agree with Rosco on most of the points, despite he feels otherwise.
I -from a space-age perspective- view humanity as a site specific installation, where the genes (DNA) define the theme, but the environment (the site) affects the memes that people copy. Also the memes have feedback on the theme itself, thus influencing it.
Marshall McMulan points out the differentiation of our species when humanity started clothing and built shelter, leading towards a society eventually.
Summary
If clothing is an extension of our private skins to store and channel
our own heat and energy, housing is a collective means of achieving
the same end for the family or the group. Housing as shelter is an
extension of our bodily heat-control mechanisms --a collective skin
or garment. Cities are an even further extension of bodily organs to
accommodate the needs of large groups.
(Isnât it parallel with Rousseauâs Back to Nature?)
Donna Haraway in an interview (1996, but the idea roots back to mid 70s) dates the appearance of cyborg
to a more recent point:
"Cyborg is not about âwe have always already been cyborgsâ, itâs about specifically mid and late twentieth century historical production."
The two idea overlaps, perhaps there is a causal-effect relation in meme culture and technical advancement.
Electricity and lately the semi-conductor technology just accelerated the advancement. Almost like super additives in chemical reaction, therefore I would argue distinguishing between homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens was necessary.
On a contemporary aspect some of us are pioneering advancement, some of us are technological inborn yet enjoying the benefits of augmentation. Some come to the conclusion of depending on technology when itâs no longer granted.
Maybe feminists have similar arguments, saying:
-One can only be feminist if marching on protests.
-Or only if supports Emma Watson.
-And also Katlyn JennerâŚ
Then one says: Maybe if I believe to be feminist that makes me feminist.
Then the other replies: Bollocks! You were born with a vagina, you are woman, no point mis-sub-categorizing it!
âŚyou know, at the end of the day all has a valid point.
I tend to take a more technical definition of it. Iâll link to another thread where we discussed it, but once upon a time, me and another guy figured out a cyborg scale.
It does tend to cut through some of the nebulous philosiphy, but at the same time a mechanistic outlook on the subject kind of misses the point of being a human cyborg. (note, humans are invariably messy to define)
I think the best answer will combine both philosiphy and factual definition. That being said, a complete answer is probably impossible to define.
Sure thing! I gave up trying to find THE answer. I am just generally amazed by the many interpretations. I find them interesting =)
Also, may I please visualise your category break-out similar to this?
Venn diagram
If youâre asking me, sure. But I donât know how youâd do that?
Photoshop?
I meant more how youâd organize it. Itâs basically a ladder list, with a binary, powered or unpowered choice. Still if you can make it pretty, go for it. Just share with the rest of us oâkay?
I will need some caffeine to answer that.
I shall slurp some in the morning!
In my experience I found out the exact opposite.
It if far easier for me to explain what is a Grinder to a Lay person. (Despite that damn App, which definitely do not help).
Mostly because of modern media take on it, I guessâŚ
If I mention the word Cyborg basically everyone I âtestedâ this approach with replied with a smirk, instinctively dismissed me as childish, and then was a lengthy conversation just to clear out all the misconceptions that word brought to the table (which in most cases became âirreparable damageâ)
If I mention âGrinderâ, They have no clue what it means (which is great, since a clean slate is much easier to work with). Then all I need to do is say something like âyou know, those folks who shove magnets on their fingers or microchips in their handsâŚ?â
That approach tends to catch them by their curiosity, without triggering any defensive mechanisms nor preconceptions.
Although my favourite approach to a Lay person is still to utilise âTranshumanistâ, which allows me to query them about how much they know of Humanism⌠then I can talk a tiny bit about it, gauge the reactions, then I have quite a vast array of topics to bring up in a way to minimise prejudice and maximise curiosity hooks.
I meant more how youâd organize it. Itâs basically a ladder list, with a binary, powered or unpowered choice.
Thatâs pretty much how I see that âcategorizationâ.
There is scope for adding a bunch more âcategoriesâ, but we donât even begin to have words for them, and honestly I am glad for it.
The more we create category divisions, the more a community tends to fragment itself.
Biohacker is all but
Hmmm⌠why? I mean, putting LED on an implantable chip definitely has cosmetic purposes, I think.
Iâm pretty new to all this, still. For me, grinders are mostly those crazy innovative people who donât care much about the amount of pain and risks they take to try out new technology - Lepht Anonym would be such a case, at least for me.
Biohacking - at least for me, again - means kinda âimprovingâ your body beyond things it was able to do before⌠like, opening doors with a chip, storing data, adding senses. And thatâs why I have some problems with all this ânutrition-biohackingâ - itâs (ideally, if it works) simply enabling your body to work as it should. Even if you go straight keto, you may change your metabolism a bit, but thatâs nothing your body wouldnât be able to do anyway.
Transhumanism is the philosophical background to all that, trying to answer the question of the meaning of further evolution for mankind - be it through technical means, genetic engineering, nutrition or anything else.
And that whole âcyborg-thingâ⌠welll.
I call myself a cyborg jokingly, sometimes, when showing people my implants or my cyber-themed bodymods. I know that most people will associate that word to something blurring the lines between human and machine, and I know that simply by wearing a chip underneath my skin, I kinda fall into that area for them, so itâs okay. Iâd never seriously call myself a cyborg - for me, this term is okay for someone like Stelarc, yes, but for me myself it feels wrong.
Still, some questions leftâŚ
Into what area of the above diagram would altering your psyche go? Like, drugs, meditation, all that stuff. Many people do that for recreational purposes, but some actually do it to âimproveâ their minds - would that be biohacking again?
And what about people who do massive cosmetic surgery - maybe beyond the point of being recognized as a human? Changing themselves on such a fundamental level (like, blurring the lines between human and cat, lizard, skeleton, whatever) feels like something âbiggerâ than just implanting a tiny chip to open up my front doorâŚ
I think there is at least some big overlapping between transhumanism and (more extreme) bodymodification / surgeryâŚ
As for using the word itself, thatâs easy: I never do Since weâre all cyborgs, implantees arenât anymore special than everybody else. Therefore I think people who insist on calling themselves cyborg are slightly delusional, and quite frankly sound a bit childish.
Iâve thought of this a lot. I donât have my first implant yet, but when I do, I definitely wonât going around talking about it. If somebody notices and asks, Iâll answer.
But as cool as it would be to say âIâm a cyborgâ, it would definitely make me come across as childish or delusional. Even though Iâd be able to prove it, the word âcyborgâ would raise peopleâs expectations too high, due to popular sci-fi representation.
The term âenhanced humanâ would just make it seem as if Iâm perpetuating myself to be superior to others.
âBiohackerâ can easily be confused with any of the other forms of biohacking.
So Iâd just be me. The implants are a part of me, but they arenât me. At most Iâd probably describe myself a âgrinderâ - because that sounds cool and makes it easier to explain what my little hobby is.
But unless somebody asks, I probably wonât bring up what I have. After all - all implants Iâm getting are catered to me, they only need to work for me.
I definitely wonât going around talking about it
If youâre in the US, you definitely should keep it to yourself. Too many crazies there.
In Europe, feel free. I do. It often leads to interesting conversations, and you often get to inspire someone to at least consider doing the same.
Just avoid two things:
1/ Donât come up to someone and say âHey, lemme show you somethingâ out of the blue. Thatâs just showing off. Wait till thereâs a decent lead in to introduce the subject.
2/ Donât say youâre a cyborg, or the conversation will quickly turn comical at best, or plain peter out. Honestly: itâs never worked for me.
I think grinder is the subset of biohacker.
My point about the term âbiohackerâ being associated with things that arenât grinding.
The proper term in reference to grinding would be âbody hackerâ but that doesnât sound as cool.
And, an analogy Iâve come up with, feel free to disagree or not:
Grinding is the black magic of biohacking.
Often regarded as extreme, or even taboo, some believe itâs dangerous and should never be practiced (Luddites, evangelicals, conservatives, etc). Then you have those who DO practice it, aware of the dangers & taking safety precautions, but still aiming for the best results.
If youâre in the US, you definitely should keep it to yourself. Too many crazies there.
In Europe, feel free. I do. It often leads to interesting conversations, and you often get to inspire someone to at least consider doing the same.
Just avoid two things:
1/ Donât come up to someone and say âHey, lemme show you somethingâ out of the blue. Thatâs just showing off. Wait till thereâs a decent lead in to introduce the subject.
2/ Donât say youâre a cyborg, or the conversation will quickly turn comical at best, or plain peter out. Honestly: itâs never worked for me.
Pretty much my plan. And yeah, I live in the US, and Iâm already more than aware of how people here are⌠especially considering Iâm in Florida⌠crazy is the perfect word.
But yeah, I think the only time Iâll ever refer to myself as a cyborg would be at the end of a conversation, a half-joke âTechnically this means Iâm a cyborg! Haha.â
But even that seems risky.
For the record, when I need to label who I am as an implantee, I call myself an âamateur transhumanist experimenterâ. Itâs longer, but it opens up conversations on how one can experiment in that field as a mere amateur, what it is exactly one can experiment with, what transhumanism is, and the people youâre talking to quickly realize itâs something they too can get into.
I call myself an âamateur transhumanist experimenterâ.
That may just actually be perfect if you want to continue the discussion if somebody asks⌠I may use this! Thanks!