We got underway in late Feb, reading the General Introduction to Technics and Time 1.
here is a comment emailed by Govinda:
So, the way I read it, Steigler’s “technical” is very similar to my idea of “ecological” being, insofar as it identifies mankind (or technical beings in their technical being) neither with the tool (mechanical) nor the hand (biological), but with the ceaseless autopoetic dialectic that binds and indeed creates/defines them…
I think this is right; my gloss would be that for Stiegler it’s not a question of a dialectic, as that implies the teleological. Stiegler is more of a Simondonian, where becoming is about a compositional dynamic where elements reciprocally individuate, but there’s not teleology implied. Alternatively his approach can be traced (a little joke there) to Derridean differance, as is specifically taken up later in TT1 (pp134-140, at the outset of section 3: ‘Who? what? the invention of the human’. We’ll be coming to this in a future session.
At the group there was some hasty overviewing of Heidegger’s thesis in Being and Time (as Stiegler resumes it very quickly in the general intro). At a certain point the authentic and inauthentic modes of being-there of Dasein was discussed. I suggested there was in fact a further distinction between genuine authentic, ingenuine authentic, and inauthentic (ingenuine inauthentic doesn’t count!). See Being and Time, H.179 (=p. 224 of the Blackwell trans.) where H is talking about how an authentic take on existence doesn’t ‘float above falling everydayness’ but is a modified way of seizing upon everydayness. Falling is ‘a kind of Being of this Being-in (which is an existentiale; a basic mode of existence of Dasein). so Falling would be an eg. of an authentic but ingenuine mode of being; making possible a genuine authentic mode as its modification (this would be the mode of being-toward death). The inauthentic mode of existence is that of ‘The they’ (Das Man), of idle talk, publicity, averageness, the ‘nobody’ Dasein becomes in ‘surrendering itself in Being-among-one-another’ (see H128, p. 165-66). but the they is described as a primordial phenomenon, with a potential for different concretisations according to individual Dasein’s history. So this too would be potentially both genuine and ingenuine, as with Falling.
Not sure if this is any help to anyone. Just working through it myself. Any Heidegger experts to the rescue???