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?
1 Like
I will need some caffeine to answer that.
I shall slurp some in the morning!
[/quote]
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.
2 Likes
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.
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
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
That may just actually be perfect if you want to continue the discussion if somebody asks⌠I may use this! Thanks!
1 Like
+1. (actually, to your whole post)
He even looks like a classic 70âs cyborg, even before you account for his implants! Bonus points for always looking so emotionless!
I sure see like so! Shame that small groups tend to isolate to âprotect their identitiesâ instead of aggregate.
70âs TV made a heck of a good job of Fâing up that word for any serious reason!
I can see your point there. And not disagreeing directlyâŚ
But I find it almost funny (because it actually makes sense) when people use âGrinderâ as someone who would only be replacing/adding hardware to their bodies, or goes to extremes.
Even on @Atillaâs venn diagram, there is an underlying implication that âWet Biohackingâ is not something from a Grinderâs domain. (and it does sound right)
About over a decade ago, at the peak of the Grinder wave before âbiohackingâ became a âthingâ⌠the Grinders were experimenting just as much with hardware as they were with wetware.
They came up with the magnets and microchips at the same time as the infamous âsee-in-the-dark eye dropsâ, bioluminescent injections and whatnotsâŚ
But now there is almost a consensus (which actually sounds almost right for some weird reason) that a Grinder deals with hardware while a _______ deals with wetworkâŚ
I mean⌠how the heck we managed to split that term without even coming up with the second word for it? 
It still puzzles me how we managed to cause such a lexical divide in such a short period of time, and not even finish the job! 
I know that labelling is part of the human process of searching for an identity, but if we keep on splitting such a thin community, weâll never find strength enough in numbers to actually push ourselves forward. 
Anyhow, @Coma pointed out perfectly what I tried to say earlier: If I am to use the word Cyborg seriously, it wonât be for anyone less than Stelarc!
2 Likes
Yes, so it belongs to 
Edit: I need to look into it 
Is the only function of the xGlow to emmit light?
I should swap boobjob to LED implant that case.
Nice to see Im not the only one who is fascinated about this topic.
I had a great time reading all the comments.
@Comaâs point about fundamentally changing the body stood out.
That made me think if there is such a point where you can say: 
from now on you are almost on the next level, but you still need to tattoo your eye-balls⌠of course there isnât. 
The process of changing itself - almost like the pupa between 
and 
.
The word biohacking makes me cringe on the level most of you feel about cyborg.
I try to avoid describing myself as any of them above.
I say instead: I am interested in body modification.
1 Like
This is a wonderful description! When I sent a friend the first picture of my scarification, about one hour after it was done, I just wrote âEvolvingâ below the pic. That was exactly how it felt - becoming more myself, step by step, mod by mod. Donât know where this will end - hope it never does.
2 Likes
I feel similar. I consider healing the part of the process, mentally as well.
Maybe due to Memento Mori, maybe just being more conscious about the part of my body that is out-of-use while stitched.
I had the same gut feeling about biohacking, transhumanism and body modding. Chip implants and grinding are things Iâm still really catching up on the history of but none of this seems so far removed from hard/heavy bodymod communities Iâve been a part of for years as far as general ethos goes!
I had seen LED implants around before I knew they could have practical applications or really understood how they would work. But I also donât think that means that the practical application is going to be the primary drive for everyone who gets them and Iâm not really sure where a hard line can be drawn between purely cosmetic and cosmetic-technical if thatâs the case.
Trying to draft a hard line there brings up a lot of questions for me like:
-
How many use cases does a mod have to have to be considered technical?
-
What uses are and arenât considered to be technical? As in - technical like technology, specifically, or technical like it expands or alters any given skill or capability? This question in particular could really broaden the technical-cosmetic overlap.
-
Does a mod being technical versus cosmetic/superficial (not meant in a derogatory sense) depend on the mod itself or the technical skill of the user/wearer?
Idk, mostly trying to puzzle this out for myself more than I am trying to make any hard and fast statements 
1 Like
See, I also like the term Grinder, the only issue is Grindr (which can easily / also be associated with me 
).
Maybe Iâll have to memorise this one! Anyway, back to lurking for me
1 Like
So double Grinder?
or
Grinder squared?
or
Grindr Grinder?
or
2 x Grinder?
Hahahaha, those are great! TBH, idk what Grindr users are called, not currently apart of it but may very well be 
Still, it almost makes it easier when people ask me âWhat, like the app?â - Yes, but also no
4 Likes