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.

在这篇文章中，我回复了 Heather Wiltse 和 Róisín Lally 的评论。两者都强调不仅要查看差距，还要考虑关系和联系的重要性——这种努力在我的原始作品中不太明显，但我完全支持，我在这里更详细地说明了这一点，并使用了“算法调解。在这个过程中，我试图澄清关于我最初的表述的一些可能的误解，因为涉及面向对象本体论对关系的立场，后现象学是否已经有一个“先验”解释的问题，与术语“先验”，以及我的建议，专门研究在“小”（“带有小“t”的技术”）和“大”（“带有大写“T”的技术”）观点之间发生的事情。