we graft the other onto us, says bazzicalupo

This is crucial. Neither biology nor anthropology can sketch the essence of the before the constitutive relationship with what is outside, to that which opens to our animality or vitality as "opening" and "feeling". It is aesthesis: the active reactivity or receptive-transformative passivity that depends on that which is other from the self. To the extent that it is dependent (and therefore removed from a divinely created and inauthentic mode of being), the human draws mimetic forms. It is therefore technique; it is art as artifice [see Bazzicalupo]. This implies a rethinking of identity as constitutively not insular: as metisse, as hybrid, and paradoxically as always cyborg. Our capacities for life are [our] capacities for artifice, for putting ourselves in relation to that which is other from us: the human is not a given, but that which can be modified. We graft the other onto us inasmuch as we are capable of assimilating and metabolizing it. By virtue of this, the corporeal doesn't dissolve into the virtual or the technological, because body and life represent an active passivity, the mnestic and selective features of that creative assimilation.

Laura Bazzicalupo, "The ambivalence of biopolitics".
 diacritics, Volume 36, Number 2, Summer 2006