Adam Montandon's blog

Read my latest news and digital adventures updated every day.

From Cyborg to the Undividual.

Adam Montandon

MSC Digital Futures

Institute of Digital Arts and Technologies.

University of Plymouth

ABSTRACT

This thesis presents a new conceptual model for the practice, performance and evolution of the sensory enhancements of cybernetic organisms. In this thesis the cybernetic organism is examined as a system within the compound term Cyborg; describing a dichotomous fusion of distinct, individual parts.

This conceptual model is based on the idea of a continually evolving complex system which can be considered as a singular holistic entity, a system that looks outside of itself and finds only itself. This model is exemplified by several systems I have developed over the past two years throughout both my academic and professional practice, dealing chiefly with the absorption[1] of digital sensory capabilities by organic systems and the evolutionary process that follows. The projects I will discuss are Lacuna for Arch-OS, a sensory system fused with architecture, MyBorg, a wearable, networkable, digital sensory suit, the EyeBorg, a collaborative synesthesia[2] device and the Butterfly Garden, an art installation and sensory extension for plants. These projects are connected both through their use and application of digital sensory stimuli and as part of an evolutionary chain, more appropriately described as descent with modification.

The principles, patterns and challenges which evolved from this practice are extracted and discussed with a particular emphasis on the potential to grasp a reality compatible with new perception tools.

This work was supported by I-DAT, HMC Entertainment Systems LLP, Submerge, Dartington College of Arts, Neil Harbisson and Zoë Kennard. 

1. INTRODUCTION

“The human as a concept has been succeeded by its evolutionary heir.”(Hayles 1995:321)

“They lied to us.

This was supposed to be the future.

Where is my jetpack?

Where is my robotic companion?

Where is my dinner in pill form?


Where is my hydrogen fuelled automobile?

Where is my nuclear powered levitating house?

Where is my cure for this disease?”

(Slabyk 2003)

“As a general rule, if you take an organism to pieces you do not end up with pieces of an organism.”(Grand 2000:139)

1. 1 MOTIVATION

This thesis is written as a report on my practice in the field of Digital Futures and is informed by my continued experimentation, observation and interest in the continued modification of perceptors, specifically the absorption of digital sensory capabilities[3] into existing organisms. The use of digital sensors to open up closed, or partially closed systems has been a common theme throughout my work over the past 3 years. It is my intention to illustrate through practical examples the interconnected nature of these systems and their environments.

It is the purpose of this thesis to present a useful conceptual model for dealing with an effective level of observation that has emerged through my practice. A model that aims to aid the understanding of whole systems that is not possible by observing its component parts, by exemplifying relationships emerging between interconnected parts rather than the parts themselves in a serial chain. Several of the interlinked concepts that create this model are presented in this thesis in parallel in order to demonstrate the non-linear thought process underpinning my work.

1.2 DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION

This thesis comes at an important stage in the human evolutionary chain (Hayles 1995). In Darwin’s book Origin of Species he describes what is today commonly referred to as evolution as descent with modification (1998)[4]. Today there is an apparent culture of technologically augmented evolution, or “techo-darwinism” (Hill 2000) where evolution takes place in realtime. The evolution of computer technology is now interwoven into the evolution of human culture. Just as it has been shaped by fire, the wheel, the printing press, and nuclear power, human culture is being affected by digital technology. This culture emerges as technology has shifted down from the realms of high-cost, low availability and specialist domain towards a cheaper, more accessible platform. This is the dawn of an interesting era when almost anyone in the western word, should they wish, has access to technology which is readily available in order to change their lives in some way.

2.1 THE CYBRID IN PRACTICE

Whilst studying at the University of Plymouth’s Portland Square building I have been fortunate enough to have a very privileged access to the Cybrid system, one of the first in the UK. The Cybrid is described by Peter Anders as a “situation where data and concrete objects work together to create new spatial entities… A Cybrid is a hybrid of physical and electronic spaces” (2001). In practical terms a Cybrid is, in the case of Portland Square, much like any other building in the concrete sense. What separates it from other buildings however, is a layer of digital apparatus embedded between the layers of concrete. In the case of Portland Square, the digital apparatus is primarily a sensory system designed for building management. Temperature, water usage, electricity usage, light and sound fluctuations[5] are just some of the many stimuli that the Cybrid can turn into digital data via an operating systems for buildings entitled Arch-OS. During my degree I paid particular attention to the theory surrounding the Cybrid system and having the chance to experiment with one in the practical sense gave me new insight into how the system could evolve in the future.

2.2 LACUNA

My first project written to use the Cybrid data, titled Lacuna, is a practical example of software written from a purely theoretical model. The physical building had not yet been created, so the software was written for something that did not exist outside the conceptual sense of the architect’s plans and the dreams of those who would later put the building to use. Lacuna, therefore, followed closely to Novak’s ideas of creating “Liquid architectures in cyberspace” (1991), allowing for a freedom from physical constraints, as detailed in my dissertation Supermodernism, Architecture for a culture without boundaries (2003).

Lacuna operates in the conceptual gap between the physical dimension of bricks and steel and the virtual dimensions of data and cyberspace. Lacuna created a freeform, constantly evolving, digital counterpart architecture to the physical structure of Portland Square. However, in practice, one of the biggest deviations from the freeform dream of an electronic architecture was the sheer physicality of the Portland Square Cybrid (Montandon 2003). Instead of infusing electricity and data into the fabric of a building “which transforms the architect's drawings, the brick, steel, glass and fiber-optic infrastructure into a living-breathing environment.” (Arch-OS Readme 2003) the production process essentially poured ton after ton of solid immobilising concrete over an immaterial flexible digital nonspace. Instead of a dynamic and fluid techno-architecture, the end result - from the published material - reads “Arch-OS uses embedded[6] technologies” (Arch-OS Readme 2003).

The current Cybrid is a system with the brains of the universe and the body of a brick.

2.3 THE CYBRID (R)EVOLUTION

“The Portland building is the first building I know of to have employed the concept of cybrid. However to be precise about the term the project would have co-existed as a virtual / physical entity from the start. The cyberspaces would have been accounted for prior to their implementation as a part of the designed composition. As the Plymouth project happened, however, the building was built first with all the electrical / data systems in place….This is a matter of process more than product: the building / cyberspaces are somewhat co-dependent and may be further integrated in the future. However, the design principles that I articulate in my thesis have yet to be fully implemented in an actual project. That requires a client / architect understanding of cybrids’ potential - one that is still in the making” (Anders 2004)

The current problem with the Cybrid can be traced to its status as a first, a one of a kind, a prototype. It is possible to predict that successive evolutions of the system will teach us more about the connectivity between systems and digital sensors. One of the qualities that technological developments have that architectonic developments do not is sheer speed. The faster Cybrids lifecycle, the faster it becomes to observe the evolution of the Cybrid as a species. This evolution can only take place in the fitness landscape[7] of the wild[8].

“Through competition for limited resources only the fittest will survive and through the extension of this competition, generations of a species will transform or adapt itself with those qualities” (Jones 1952:192)

This kind of evolution could potentially lead to:

• An improved adaptability and appropriation of a Cybrid to its environmental and social surroundings.


• An increased display of fitness for purpose.



• An improvement in stability and resistance to interference (such as virus attacks, fire, etc) through selective reproduction.


• A new flexibility of application, as Anders describes “I see Cybrids applying to arts, sciences, environments, objects, people. Anything where the unity of material and symbolic are manifest.” (2004).


• Emergence of higher level behaviours such as awareness, consciousness etc.

2.4 EVOLUTION NOT INSTITUTION

I believe that the speed at which any species (The Portland Square Cybrid can be considered to be the first of a species) can go through an evolutionary cycle is paramount to its adaptability to both the real and virtual world. This evolution is especially important in situations where technology becomes augmented with a subject. As Bill Hill explains in Techno-Darwinism: Artificial Selection in the Electronic Age:

“The traits once considered to be assets for survival are now obstacles. As technology further augments the ‘natural’ with the artificial the more the ‘weaker’ traits of the species will prevail, further perpetuating the reliance on the artificial for increased productivity. The tools the human species make in turn makes them. So the notion of a ‘natural selection’ process touted by Darwin and his followers seems to be increasingly transforming itself into an artificial process driven by a social collective which seeks survival through technology.” (2000:19)

In cases such as these, where weaker traits prevail through generations, compensation must be achieved through technology. A weaker genetic species should, according to Darwin (1998), die out, but that species can survive if it becomes stronger through the application of technology. To take this Techno-Darwinist approach is to accept that the technology will evolve. The question is when will it evolve[9]?

One of the leading theorists of change rate in buildings is Frank Duffy from the design firm DEGW. He dissects the building into four separate layers of change (1990:12), rather than as distinct physical space. He describes the four layers as Shell, Services, Scenery and Set. A brief description of each layer follows below and most importantly the approximate speed of evolution for each layer is described, starting with the most permanent outer layers and moving inwards towards a faster, more flexible, more adaptable innards. This data is useful as a tool to identify the time when modification is likely to occur, illustrating the approximate speed of evolution of the building as a system. This information is presented in parallel with information detailing the layers of the Cybrid system, as they are embedded within the Portland Square building, as the physical dimension to the building alters over time, so too can the digital dimension. Interestingly, nested within the layers of the physical building are digital segments of the Cybrid, all of which are moving at different rates of permanence and therefore different rates of evolution.

2.4.1.A SHELL The outermost layer of the building. This is the permanent structure. Shell is the building. The shell has the slowest rate of change, commonly the shell is never changed in a building. If change is desired at the shell layer, normally the entire building must be demolished and a new one constructed.	2.4.1.B INTERFACE The sensory input layer that tracks the changes within the building. This layer is deeply embedded into the service layer of the building (it is, in fact, a service) and is therefore the slowest and most difficult part of the Cybrid to be modified.
2.4.2.A SERVICES Services is the layer inside the shell containing cables, plumbing, sprinklers, heating, lifts, electrics and other services. Most notably the digital Cybrid info-structure resides in this layer in the current arcos model. This layer changes approximately every 15 years, as pieces wear out or new services are added.	2.4.2.B EXTENSIONS This layer represents the extensible ports of the Cybrid that can accept external video, audio or data feeds. This layer is more accessible than the interface layer, but still has a slow rate of modification due to the physical nature of the attached extensions.
2.4.3.A SCENERY The Scenery is the inner layer of the building concerning the layout of the internal rooms. Partitions, dropped ceilings and other features change approximately every five to seven years.	2.4.3.B CORE The core level is the dedicated computing layer that interprets the data from the interface and extensions and converts it into web-ready XML, Video, 3D images, Sonic models etc.
2.4.4.A SET The set is the architectural layer with the fastest rate of change. The set is the furniture, chairs, tables, and desks etc that move every few minutes. The set is the furniture level; in fact the word furniture is called mobilia in Italian, illustrating just how fast it moves.	2.4.4.B PROJECTS Various projects are the end result, the artistic or technical expression of the data from the core. This layer changes rapidly, and the Cybrid may see several new projects emerging each year.

2.5 UNIT OF SPEED

Interestingly, the set level, or furniture level is designed to be just one level removed from the fastest changing element of the building, the occupants. This diagram below shows the building as a unit of speed, and the relationships between the speeds of neighbouring layers.

These layers of change can be applied to the human inhabitants. The shell level becomes the body, the services the nervous system, digestive system etc. The scenery is the overall consciousness or method of thinking. The set is the individual neurons constantly firing and strengthening connections as they are stimulated. In order to speed up the evolution of the Cybrid system I developed a re-creation at a much faster level, the level of the body.

3.1 MYBORG

I set out to explore and experiment with digital sensory perceptors by linking my body to its surrounding environment. Environment is defined as being the set of the world’s dimensions to which an organism can be sensitive. What we traditionally understand is not part of reality, but it is the reality that is compatible with our sensory tools of perception. Any changes to our sensory system can bring about large and unpredictable changes in our perception of reality.

I created a custom hardware system that extended my body’s nervous system by adding 16 new digital nerves that allowed me to sense changes in my internal body and my external environment. I wired sensors for temperature, light, tilt, and vibration into the fabric of a jacket, placing the sensors in strategic places on my upper body. This jacket became known as the MyBorg, a wearable, portable, digital uniform. As I navigated through my environment the MyBorg’s digital nerves sensed every interaction; vibration sensors on my chest allowed my breathing to be recorded, tilt sensors on my shoulders recognized which direction I was facing, light sensors allowed me to judge proximity to objects, and light sensors on my back enabled me to ascertain if someone was walking up behind me. All this information wired across my body was then converted into MIDI data via a custom chipboard mounted inside my jacket pocket. The MIDI data could then be passed to a wider number of computer applications for processing.

By far the most intuitive use for the MyBorg is navigating 3D spaces. Using the MyBorg with immersive 3D environments, it is possible to spin, rotate, tilt, dip, and fly through a virtual architecture as if you were in it yourself. Because of the ability to completely control a 3D scene, I could alter any aspect in real time with the movements of my body and my surroundings. It quickly became possible to relate changes in the real-world architecture, such as lights and sounds, to directly manipulate the virtual 3D architecture.

4.1 TRANSITIONS

The Myborg represents a transition from the architecture of the Cybrid to the architecture of the Cyborg.

I have been looking for a term that describes the transition in my work from smart rooms to smart uniforms. Currently I have been using the phrase tangled in the machine as the only accurate account of my location during my practice. However this phrase is unsatisfactory because it relies strongly on a sense of place. Notice how the word Cyborg is spelt with a capital C in this thesis intentionally, to demonstrate the concept of Cyborg as a place. Initially my work was centred around a specific site, weather it be the architecture of a room, the architecture of the virtual or the architecture of the body. I find that my most recent projects are without place and in fact exist in what could be described as the connected environment. They deal with the connected / interconnected phenomena that emerge as a by-product of Cyborg praxis. In order to clarify my position, the following chapter outlines the current context of the Cyborg.

4.2 HYPHE-NATION

“Keeping the insides in but not all of the outsides out is an important trick, and an essential step in the evolution of life.” (Grand 2000:52)

The term Cyborg means simultaneously both cybernetic and organism. It is a duality. In practical terms, the word Cyborg is actually a recipe. Simply take one part cybernetic, from the Greek word kubernetes, meaning steersman. The word is based on the 1830’s French term cybernétique meaning literally the art of governing. Combine this with one part organism. The term organism stems from the Medieval Latin organizare, taken from the Latin organum. The word Organisation is originally in the sense act of organising, from the Medieval Latin organizationem (nom. organizatio), from organizare; meaning the condition of being organised is first attested in 1790; that of action of organising parts into a whole is in 1816; that of system, establishment is in 1873. Organization Man as one who subverts his individuality to the organization that employs him is from the title of W.H. Whyte's 1956 book. (Harper 2001).

These initial definitions are so intentionally loose that they suggest that by arranging these two parts in practically any configuration it is possible to create a Cyborg.

The term Cyborg was first used by Manfred E. Clynes who co-authored “Cyborgs and Space” in 1960 with Nathan S. Kline (1960:29), as a concept for human / machine integration for survival in outer space. More recently though, the term Cyborg, as a compound of cybernetic and organism has found new diversity through the recombination of multiple ideas, products or services. Ridderstrale and Nordström explain what they call the hyphenated society. “Welcome to hyphe-nation – a cut and past culture … edu-tainment, caffe-late, corporate-university, info-tainment, distance-learning, visual-ergonomic, TV-dinners, info-com, psyco-linguistics, bio-tech, e-mail, gin-tonic and so on.” (2000:119). This re-mixing of ingredients makes for ‘new’ recipes that in turn become their own ingredients folded in to a new concoction.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the inherent diversity in the field, there is a strong need to classify or at least map distinctions between various approaches to Cyborg practice. Gray et al. attempted this in 1995, broadly defining 4 separate kinds of Cyborg, the Restorative, the Normalizing, the Reconfiguring and the Enhancing.

“Cyborg technologies can be restorative, in that they restore lost functions and replace lost organs and limbs; they can be normalizlng, in that they restore some creature to indistinguishable normality; they can be ambiguously reconfiguring, creating posthuman creatures equal to but different from humans, like what one is now when interacting with other creatures in cyberspace or, in the future, the type of modifications proto-humans will undergo to live in space or under the sea having given up the comforts of terrestrial existence; and they can be enhancing, the aim of most military and industrial research, and what those with cyborg envy or even cyborgphilia fantasize. The latter category seeks to construct everything from factories controlled by a handful of “worker-pilots” and infantrymen in mind-controlled exoskeletons to the dream many computer scientists have-downloading their consciousness into immortal computers.” (Gray et al. 1995:3)

These definitions, whilst still largely valid, are almost a decade old, and the Cyborg has seen many evolutions - or perhaps descent with modification (Darwin 1998) - that constantly modify the radius of classification for the Cyborg. In order to elucidate upon the evolution of the Cyborg, we must also have an evolution in our understanding of the term Cyborg.

4.3 TRAPPED WITHOUT A BORDER

“An important question that you might ask is: humans were using technologies all along. Were they Cyborgs? the answer is no, because there were no Cyborgs back then...meaning that the term emerged out of a cultural dynamic, understanding, and practice that simply did not exist at any other time. Gray, Mentor and Figueroa-Sarriera state in the introduction of the Cyborg Handbook that to call a pre-historic person a Cyborg because she was using tools is to apply current cultural setting onto the past. Sure you can do it but it will not explain you any more what it is to be a Cyborg today.”

(Berger 1997)

I intend to add to the list of Cyborg possibility, written by Gray et al. (1995), in part 4.2 in order for Cyborg classifications to be seen not as a ridged set of concepts, but as a free-flowing and constantly evolving reference. The intent of the below classifications is to open up the dialog of what a Cyborg can possibly be, as it evolves.

One key issue with the notion of Cyborg is the multiplicity of ways it can be interpreted. The practice of being a Cyborg does not have the clear cut luxury of having a unique serial number by which we may identify ourselves. There are many broad and subjective groups of what we may consider Cyborg and these groups are broken down further into subsets. These distinctions serve the purpose, not to segregate between differences in Cyborg practice, but to highlight the similarities and multiplicities of a diverse practice.

It must be acknowledged at this point that these following categorisations must be considered as a non-exclusive list, as the constant evolution of the Cyborg constantly blurs the boundaries of categorisation. However the following categories prove useful for this thesis as both definitions of some of the existing Cyborg activity today and as an illustration of the impracticality of calling a wide range of practices by one name. The following definitions are based around my practical experience over the past two years, and I fully expect it to grow, not in the style of a family tree or genus, but more towards a software revisions list. If the below are to be considered Cyborg, I intend to develop the justification of the creation of what may considered Cyborg 2.0.

4.4.1 THE PRACTICAL CYBORG

The practical Cyborg can be defined as any entity that is traditionally called organic (non-Cyborg) who actively engages in the practice of becoming networked. We are increasingly seeing a rise in individuals actively seeking to be engaged in Cyborg practices. This category also includes the sub-type of Cyborg, the illusionary Cyborg. This type of Cyborg can be considered a fake, a hoax, an illusion, not a Cyborg at all, but having the appearance of one – such as movie stars (Goldberg 1995:233) - and those that perhaps believe they are a Cyborg but are not networked in any way.

4.4.2 THE CYBORG NARCISSUS

The Cyborg Narcissus wants to reproduce the feelings and imagination that exist in the mind. The behaviour of the Cyborg Narcissus is to fall in love with unbodied hope. This is achieved by technology that allows a participant to find substance in what is only shadow. To the observer, the Cyborg Narcissus interaction seems to be as immaterial as a shadow or reflection, lacking any substance. To the participant, this immateriality is the experience.

In the practical sense the Cyborg Narcissus was initially seen (from a digital perspective) with the advent of Virtual Reality headsets and software, such as Char Davis’ Osmose (1995) and Nintendo’s Virtual boy (2004). Today the effect is still popular, but not through the head mounted screens. A good example of a Cyborg Narcissus experience is one achieved with the Sony Eyetoy (2003), a device for the Playstation 2 home video game console that allows the participants reflections to become part of an immersive digital environment.

4.4.3 THE CYBORG ICARUS

The Cyborg Icarus intends to overcome his own limits to increase freedom. The Cyborg Icarus typically uses a prosthesis of some kind to overcome a perceived limitation in an attempt to move toward a subjective freedom or ideal state. The Cyborg Icarus commonly uses technology as a substitute for evolution. When traditional genetic evolution is not fast enough, or if a metamorphosis is not practically possible the Cyborg Icarus will artificially extend, improve or modify himself. “biology is no longer limited by the genetic codes of evolution” (Mann 2001:2) This commonly happens within modern healthcare, such as the use of glasses, false teeth or artificial limbs. It also includes the use of technology to extend the body, such as the act of driving a car, using a telephone or a calculator.

4.4.4 THE CYBORG SIREN

The Cyborg Siren utilises technology to enable or increase the genetic evolutionary cycle. The Cyborg Siren typically uses technologies to appear more attractive to a potential mate in order to aid the traditional genetic evolutionary cycle. A good example of this would be the application of a wide variety of cosmetics in order to attract a mate. By temporarily modifying for example ones appearance (makeup), smell (perfume), or physicality (high-heeled shoes, breast implants, penis extensions) a Cyborg Siren can constantly re-evolve its outer shell. Whilst this may seem initially superficial, this practice can act as a catalyst for reproduction and therefore becomes a key strategy in the evolutionary process. The Cyborg Siren does not adhere to the notion of survival of the fittest[10], but instead, survival of the appearance of fitness. Through reproduction the Cyborg Siren is able to contribute more of their genetic character to the species as a whole.

4.4.5 THE ACCIDENTAL CYBORG

This is the definition for those that display traditional Cyborg characteristics but do not consider themselves to be a Cyborg, or do not intentionally become a Cyborg. An example of this is taken from Grandmother Margarethe Koller’s response to Ars Electronica’s resident artists in an “Interview with an 86 year old Cyborg” in 1997.

Q. “Would you call yourself a Cyborg then?”

A. “I am starting to like this word: Cyborg. I suppose if I was going to live another 50 years, I'd have to learn terms like this and yes, maybe I would call myself a Cyborg, unless I discover that it is something dirty.” (Berger 1997)

In the most extreme case I believe that a person being shot with a bullet can be defined as an Accidental Cyborg. The person being shot has his body momentarily augmented with technology (the bullet) to perform the function of stopping both the human and the bullet’s functions. An individual whilst being shot would become an Accidental Cyborg, never intending for the augmentation to take place. This is counter to the classic definition that a Cyborg is “a person whose physiological functioning is aided by, or dependant on a mechanical or electronic device” (Webster’s New Unabridged Dictionary 1997) instead the Accidental Cyborg’s functioning may be severely hindered or in fact cease due to the interruption from technology.

4.5 ARE WE ALL CYBORGS?

Though the sciences gave birth to the term Cyborg they quickly lost definitional control of its meaning. Both Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1998) written in 1818 and Fritz Lang's 1927 film Metropolis illustrate that the aesthetic idea of the Cyborg existed long before the term was introduced; therefore, it was perhaps not coincidental that the pragmatic, scientific use of the Cyborg was rapidly joined by its use as a metaphor of cultural semiotics. 

The term Cyborg has found itself used as a tool for discussing everything from fiction to feminism, in its uses from Hollywood to Haraway, because of its multi-layered narrative, either as a scientific term or as a metaphorical idea. Haraway explains in the foreword to The Cyborg Handbook: “I used the Cyborg as a blasphemous anti-racist feminist figure reshaped for science-studies analyses and feminist theory alike” (Gray 1995)

Examples of Cyborg blasphemy, similar to these described by Haraway, have caused problems in the scientific community. On the one extreme is Professor Kevin Warwick who uses the term Cyborg complete with its Hollywood baggage of man-machines to introduce his research. A good example of this is his essay The Matrix, our future?(1999) where he describes his scientific work within the context of the popular 1999 Wachowski brothers film The Matrix. On the other extreme is Professor Steve Mann, author of Cyborg, Digital Destiny and Human Possibility in the Age of the Wearable Computer, who is reluctant to call himself a Cyborg, preferring the more accurate and specific terminology of Wearable Computing to describe his work (2001).

The multi-utility of the term can become problematic in the scientific discourse of the Cyborg. This became apparent in my practice as my work was underpinned by a fragile language; the Cyborg no longer has a singular meaning, definition, semiotic or story, but instead inherited a multi-narrative. Language is the process of fragmenting reality, conceptually breaking it down into distinct things that are referred to with words. We see the world in the way that we describe it, as a fragmented collection of things rather than as a continuous whole.

If “We are all Cyborgs” (1989:66), as Haraway suggests, then these terms apply to every one of us. This all encompassing description is inappropriate in, as why have a definition to differentiate when we are all the same. The Cyborg as a definition loses its utility within a homogenous usage context. To be a useful definition, the Cyborg must always exist in comparison to something else: We are not all Cyborgs. The term Cyborg seems loose enough to encompass all people, yet simultaneously excludes individuality due to the dualistic nature of the cybernetic organism.

During my practice I have struggled with the Cyborg’s homogenous implications, as my work has explored the individualistic and highly personal nature of the cybernetic organism. For example, the Myborg device was created as a one-of-a-kind, unique system, centred around the individual body of the creator. Instructions were placed on the internet for other people to create their own unique versions. It was my intention to create a diversity and variety in future generations of Cyborg, so that the Cyborg as a species can be strengthened by a constant adaptation to both the participants and the environment. Through this approach the Cyborg can become as individual as we are. Even though Cyborgs can be built around the same hardware, no two are ever truly the same. We can always expect mutations and variations, even when running the same instruction set. Through this diversification, we can expect to see the emergence of a higher-level behaviour.

5. TOWARDS A HIGHER LEVEL

“The contribution of conventional technology makes the artificial not only able to reproduce the natural performances of the exemplar but also to generate side performances which are almost always unforeseeable a priori. This explains why, as a paradoxical rule, the more an artificial device advances, the more it tends to move away from the exemplar and from its essential performance.

The artificial, in conclusion, is conceived and present in the first phases of its existence as a natroid, and object achieved by man and oriented to some natroid, exemplar as it is seen at a given observation level. However, it soon becomes, or reveals itself to be, a technoid, that is to say, it becomes an object that exhibits characteristics which exceed those of the exemplar and either strengthens, reduces or somehow transfigures some of these, as if it had to redraw the exemplar not as it is but as it should be.” (Negrotti 1999:47)

Emergence can occur when a system comprising of relatively simple elements works together to form an adaptive, higher level of behaviour. This is detailed by Steven Johnson in Emergence, The connected lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software (2000) and Steve Grand in Creation, Life and how to make it (2000). The higher level of behaviour sits above the physical platform from which it was created. It is possible to observe and identify this higher level behaviour and separate it as an abstract concept from the components that cause it. For example it is possible to identify the “separation or segregation of the flight from the bird…in this case of a function (fight) by distinct and otherwise unrelated material structures (bird and airplane).” (Rosen 1993:7).

It becomes apparent that the materials of a system or its physical architecture are ultimately replaceable and interchangeable; it is the relationship between the parts that creates the higher level behaviour. For example, The Tinkertoy Computer (Dewdney 1993) proved that a computer can be made of wood and string and still work. Processes such as intelligence - as argued by Johnson (2000) - and life - as described by Grand (2000)- can be considered completely independent from the platform on which they are implemented. All information systems or processes are indefinitely replicable without depending, within certain limits at least, on material structures.

As Grand elegantly describes: “You are not the stuff of which you are made.” (2000:30).

I believe that one higher level behaviour that may emerge from successive evolutions of Cyborgs / Cybrids is that of consciousness. I believe that the (extra)-sensory nature of these systems lend themselves well to the emergence of an awareness of surroundings, as defined in 3.1, that is important in the creation of consciousness. This belief is based on the first 4 points of Robert Pepperell’s 10 point guide to the Posthuman Conception of Consciousness (2000:12). They are:

1. Consciousness is not restricted to the brain.

2. The human body is not separate from its environment.

3. Consciousness, body and environment are all continuous.

4. Consciousness emerges from specific conditions.

Pepperell convincingly describes consciousness as an emergent function of the organism, not the organ, the system, not the component parts. Consciousness is constructed not solely in the brain, but in the environment it connects to via the body. The consciousness doesn’t have a particular seat, place or local point at which it is possible to say that consciousness exists, rather it is distributed throughout the entire sensory system. Consciousness is also not practical in isolation. If we imagine a box that is said to be conscious, there is no way we can test this claim, we must interface with the box of consciousness via an input / output device, whether this is a keyboard and monitor or the body of a human. It is possible to view what may be seen as peripheral to consciousness (e.g. limbs, sensors etc) as an integral part of the system, therefore the very computer chips, sensory systems and artificial body parts that make up a Cyborg all work towards extending the distribution of consciousness throughout the body network. There is no longer an interior / exterior split between mind and body, body and nature. The boundaries can be so fuzzy they are identifiable but not definable. The Cyborg condition underlines the notion that we are without limits.

6.1 THE UNDIVIDUAL

“I combine words and occupy places that are the consequences of those words. Every medium has its own words, every mixture of words has a potential for meaning… now [in digital space] I can mix the words of different media and watch the meaning become navigable, enter it, watch magic and music merge…” (Novak 1991:257)

After establishing many of the problems with the term Cyborg in reference to my practice and establishing that the phrase tangled in the machine is no longer appropriate as the emerging higher level phenomena are not restricted to the platform of the machine on which it is created, I propose a new term as a tool for presenting and clarifying my ideas and practice in this field. The term is not intended to replace the term Cyborg, but to clarify my specific area of interest and to create a consistent contextual framework for my current and future practice. It is appropriate to mention the Czech playwright Daniela Fischerova’s insight that “Every new word is a new reality.” (2000).

6.2 “LOCKED IN, NOT LOGGED ON” ABSORPTION NOT FUSION.

Through the etymological approach, I shall introduce the term undividual to describe a single unity as opposed to the dichotomy of the cy-borg. This term is useful because it signifies not the fusing together of two objects but the emergent singularity of a system as a whole.

The first part of the term stems from the Old English un-, disputing the right to form the negation of certain words. Un is a prefix of reversal (e.g. unhand). The second part of the term comes from the Latin divisibilis or dividere meaning to force apart, cleave, distribute, which in turn is from the Proto-Indo-European base widh- meaning to separate, for example as used in widow. The mathematical usage of the term divide is from c.1425. The architectural term divider meaning partition or screen, especially in a room, is from 1959 (Harper 2001).

The term undividual differs from the word individual. Whereas individual is used to describe a single object or thing, and has the colloquial sense of person attested from 1742, the undividual is a reversal or negation of a division (Harper 2001). Where the individual has a sense of single, separate or intended for one person the undividual has a sense of infinite connectivity.

The undividual describes any system that looks outside of itself and finds only itself[11]

The undividual is a conceptual holistic singularity that cannot be broken down into smaller parts. Whereas the Cyborg suggests that the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts, with the undividual the whole is the whole. To elaborate on this idea further, the undividual does not subscribe to the dichotomous split of interior / exterior, but rather exists as a unity with all it encounters. Therefore the undividual can describe the universal reality of a theoretically encapsulated system. Before the undividual there is lack of clarity about the edges of open systems; there is talk of blurred boundaries of horizons of invisibility of interfaces of fusion. The undividual wipes away the lines in the sand. The undividual is locked in, not logged on.

In order to clarify this I present a table of comparison highlighting the key differences in approach between the Cyborg and the undividual.

THE CYBORG PERSPECTIVE	THE UNDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE
Cybernetic + Organism = Cyborg	Cyborg < > (Cybernetic + organism)
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.	If you take a system apart, you do not have parts of that system.
Fusion	Absorption
Logged on.	Locked in.
Humans get an upgrade.	Constant evolution towards an infinite singularity.
Interior / exterior – blurred boundaries.	Border is no longer a reference point.
Hyphe-nation.	(Encapsulation.)
Recipe.	Menu.
Can perceive multiple environments at once (multiverse)	Compounds multiple perceptions into a global view.
Confusion over component parts.	Accepts the whole as a level of observation
“Just as you would not want to wear another person’s undergarments or mouthguard, you may not want to find yourself wearing another person’s computer” (Mann 2001:218)	“We wear all of mankind as our skin” (McLuhan 1997)