Three questions. Neither of which I anticipate are remotely original[1] but at the very least may aid in situating things in their appropriate space:

  1. To what degree is Gestell is Negantropy? Whether that be as a sort of proto formulation, a manner of expression, or a diagonally adjacent concept converging on something of the same. To what degree is the ordering, the "attitude" of ordering, better even yet the mode of ordering the, in other words, sway or impetus of the essence of technology the structural propagation that defines negentropy in as much as it brings about its greater structure in the gathering together consumptively of structural proximal?
  2. When we speak of available energy in terms of "energy that may be used for such and such" to what degree is this a question of a potential covered over, as not yet enframed in this ordered manner? Consider for instance:
      The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge. ... Available energy is energy which we can direct into any desired channel. Dissipated energy is energy which we cannot lay hold of and direct at pleasure, such as the energy of the confused agitation of molecules which we call heat. (Maxwell somewhere or other I'll cite later when I'm not tired)
  3. This is the most presently sloppily speculative. If being, as of the being there for which man is there--in some manner--in, of, and for, is a negentropic gesture par excellence then to what degree may we differentiate its being from the being of which emerges in manners of this same propagation.[2] To what degree is there a being to the ordering as mode and as world? What is the being of the world as it was? To this Being and Time might be said to speak. Yet what is the world that is coming to be disclosed through the essence of technology?
  4. The final question of pertinence that I feel strongly must bookend, like the text itself, questions of technology and Heidegger's thinking: What does the prominence placed on Holderlin's quote "But where the danger is, also grows the saving power" entail? And further, what of the underappreciated complex Turning lecture?

  5. [1] It seems likely that approaching Stiegler is in fact approaching this question among other.
    [2] Think Lyotard here in the Postmodern Fables here and to a different (albeit not likely lesser) degree in The Inhuman.