Abstract

In this contribution I reply to Heather Wiltse and Róisín Lally’s commentaries. Both stress the importance of not only looking at gaps, but also accounting for relation and connection—an endeavor which was less visible in my original piece but which I wholly support, and on which I elaborate more here, making use of the example of ‘algorithmic mediation.’ In the process, I attempt to clear up some possible misunderstandings with regard to my initial formulations, as concerns object-oriented ontology’s stance on relation, the question of whether postphenomenology already has a ‘transcendental’ account, the variety of possible connotations associated with the term ‘transcendental,’ and my proposals for looking specifically at what happens in between ‘small’ (‘technology with a small “t”’) and ‘big’ (‘Technology with a capital “T”’) perspectives. It turns out that my commentators and I are pretty much on a similar track—though we may differ in the first instance as to the conceptual instruments we would choose to deploy in that, nonetheless shared, project.