In response to my article “Earth, Technology, Language”, Christopher Müller asks whether use-oriented theory and Wittgensteinian language can capture the structural relations of power that shape habituation and argues that digital media do not provide opportunities for empowerment and democracy because there is no co-ownership. In my reply I argue that I have shown that this can be done with the broader conception of use I propose, that the grammar of technology should also be understood in terms of implicit knowledge, and that technology, like language, also has a public dimension: I claim that there is no such thing as a private technology or private power, and that some degree of co-ownership or resistance is possible. In the second part of the paper I reply to Bas de Boer’s questioning of my criticism of postsphenomenology. I insist that postphenomenology does not have the full instrumentarium to carry out an adequate and comprehensive analysis of the social dimension of technology use, and that it is important to attend to the structural dimension of technology, with or without use of the term ‘transcendental’. I clarify my use of the term as referring to conditions of possibility.

在回复我的文章“地球、技术、语言”时，克里斯托弗·穆勒询问使用导向理论和维特根斯坦的语言是否可以捕捉塑造习惯的权力结构关系，并认为数字媒体没有提供赋权和民主的机会，因为存在没有共同所有权。在我的答复中，我认为我已经表明这可以通过我提出的更广泛的使用概念来完成，技术的语法也应该从隐性知识的角度来理解，并且技术，就像语言一样，也有一个公共维度：我声称不存在私有技术或私有权力这样的东西，并且某种程度的共同所有权或抵抗是可能的。在论文的第二部分，我回答了巴斯德布尔对我对后现象学的批评的质疑。我坚持认为后现象学没有完整的工具来对技术使用的社会维度进行充分和全面的分析，无论是否使用“先验”一词，关注技术的结构维度都很重要。 . 我澄清了我对这个术语的使用，因为它指的是可能性条件。