xx

C Y B I O S E S T H E F U T U R E I M P E R F E C T 2 0 2 3

C Y B

O

T H E F U T U R E I M P E R F E C T 2 0 2 3

CYBIOSIS

I

S E S

INTRODUCTION

BY ERIC DIEBEL

The future will be imperfect; of course, it will be How could it be otherwise? There are no terms and conditions, no pre-determined moment where you click I agree and it is delivered to you, as if it were, under control, or, even better, a wish that was granted a long time ago

Grammatically speaking there s no tense form in English called the future imperfect Yet, English also manages to get across in other ways that in the future there will be an action or a state characterized by repetition, something continuous, incomplete and not defined by a precise starting point or characterized by an exact number of events In the future things will be imperfect” comes close enough, if we read it like a prediction that challenges us to think, investigate, discuss our ability to make our plans without knowing precisely what is the point its starts and without closing down what the future holds

We called it cybioses”, which is the name of our study circle, a seminar series with intense meetings twice a year, part of the Nordic Summer University (NSU) The NSU is a nomadic organization that supports seminars across the Baltic and Nordic region Our study circle can trace its existence back to 2017 with its continuity going back somewhat further as it is a merger of two other circles, one artistic with a focus on the future, and another doing theory/critique and technology There are still a few contributors who have been active that long, but only a few, the others join as they are interested in the topics, the dynamic or developing collaborations

That is, already, what the title stands for; it combines a reference to cybernetics, its many offshoots and their hold on future with the concept of “life” and “living together” (as in: bios/symbiosis, plural, symbioses) Consequently, our events and collaborative efforts like this book are illustrations of cybioses

CYBIOSES: THE DIFFERENCE

Th Cybioses is also a problem statement, in that it refers to the need to change how we approach the imperfect future That implies there is something to change about how we are expected to no longer be disciplinary; how –disciplinarity has become normal, in between fields, across fields, together with who aren t in any field and so on True enough, working like this is an imperative, integral to acting ethically, being responsible, and forward looking This is mainstream and conventional, and has been for a while in many places and applies to many fields, whether artistic, technological, scholarly or otherwise Indeed, it includes the NSU, which can no longer simply refer to its illustrious past, which none of us witnessed wherein it pioneered feminism, environmentalism and interdisciplinarity It also applies to technology, as an interdisciplinary topic of concern, as we might observe that they were there at the very start, with with Niels Bohr as one of its founders over 70 years ago (see Pálmadóttir & Sjöstedt 2022, Enquist Källgren 2020)1 But that s our past, an ever more distant foundational moment, mythical in how it is extended to the core values of the NSU today, like democracy, equality and all that good stuff

Today we have an imperfect future ahead of us, as was hammered home when quite some years ago the NSU s funder for a generation, the Nordic council, observed that its crossdisciplinary profile is no longer unique” (see Pálmadóttir & Sjöstedt 2022: 59) 2 This is accurate, given how conventional that is, or even, how interdisciplinarity (too much of it, done wrong) is part of many problems And that also applies to seeking to retain a pioneering role in marking cross-disciplinarity on the Nordic map, establishing it as a priority in the Baltics and on However, it is a priority today to get cross-disciplinarity” right, do it differently than as a given component of every attempt to address the problems of the future, global challenges, or goals and the like

In other words, we ’ re heading to an imperfect future that will be a state that is saturated with various types of [fill in your preferred prefix]- disciplinarity” What if the pioneering function of our circle and the NSU more generally, as types of cybioses, is to insist that there can be a different type of cross-disciplinarity, with lower-thresholds, even less hierarchical, open to the location where we find ourselves, with priorities shifting along with its participants, their generation, the influences they bring We do this by design and as a necessary ingredient for the intensity of the conversation, and, perhaps, as a requirement for an open future, as a core element that went missing when everyone began advocating that the boundaries were the problem, when it became self-evidently a part of everyone ’ s professional identity – and the future began closing in on itself around it

CYBIOSES: THE DIFFERENCE.

CYBIOSES: THE DIFFERENCE

Th Cybioses is also a problem statement, in that it refers to the need to change how we approach the imperfect future That implies there is something to change about how we are expected to no longer be disciplinary; how –disciplinarity has become normal, in between fields, across fields, together with who aren t in any field and so on True enough, working like this is an imperative, integral to acting ethically, being responsible, and forward looking This is mainstream and conventional, and has been for a while in many places and applies to many fields, whether artistic, technological, scholarly or otherwise Indeed, it includes the NSU, which can no longer simply refer to its illustrious past, which none of us witnessed wherein it pioneered feminism, environmentalism and interdisciplinarity It also applies to technology, as an interdisciplinary topic of concern, as we might observe that they were there at the very start, with with Niels Bohr as one of its founders over 70 years ago (see Pálmadóttir & Sjöstedt 2022, Enquist Källgren 2020)1 But that s our past, an ever more distant foundational moment, mythical in how it is extended to the core values of the NSU today, like democracy, equality and all that good stuff

Today we have an imperfect future ahead of us, as was hammered home when quite some years ago the NSU s funder for a generation, the Nordic council, observed that its crossdisciplinary profile is no longer unique” (see Pálmadóttir & Sjöstedt 2022: 59) 2 This is accurate, given how conventional that is, or even, how interdisciplinarity (too much of it, done wrong) is part of many problems And that also applies to seeking to retain a pioneering role in marking cross-disciplinarity on the Nordic map, establishing it as a priority in the Baltics and on However, it is a priority today to get cross-disciplinarity” right, do it differently than as a given component of every attempt to address the problems of the future, global challenges, or goals and the like

In other words, we ’ re heading to an imperfect future that will be a state that is saturated with various types of [fill in your preferred prefix]- disciplinarity” What if the pioneering function of our circle and the NSU more generally, as types of cybioses, is to insist that there can be a different type of cross-disciplinarity, with lower-thresholds, even less hierarchical, open to the location where we find ourselves, with priorities shifting along with its participants, their generation, the influences they bring We do this by design and as a necessary ingredient for the intensity of the conversation, and, perhaps, as a requirement for an open future, as a core element that went missing when everyone began advocating that the boundaries were the problem, when it became self-evidently a part of everyone ’ s professional identity

and the future began closing in on itself around it

–