1_Springs of Mechanization_pg30_Giedion concludes his discussion on movement with the following:

“…unaccustomed to translating thought into emotional experience, can do no more than pose the question: ‘Are the trajectories, as recorded by a production engineer…., in any way connected with the emotional impact of the signs that appear time and again in our contemporary art?’ Only in our period, so unaccustomed to assimilating processes of thought into the emotional domain, could serious doubt arise.”

Reiterating his point on differing schools of thought between the ancients and modern day, the author hints that the new, rational, objective, way of thinking and analyzing is lacking in emotional development, and that is indeed a problem.

Similarly to how the ancients were awed and amazed by a birds flight, now that we know how it happens, are we lacking an ability to be awed and amazed by the world around us? Were we better off prior, in a state of ‘equilibrium thinking’ than we are now with forward pushing, mechanized thought processes?

2_Springs of Mechanization_pg32_Giedion acknowledges that socioeconomic forces prevented mechanization from being developed earlier in human history. Specifically, he cites guilds as the major hurdle preventing mechanization of production. It wasn’t until societal will changed and guilds became ‘obsolete’ that mechanization was able to take hold.

Drawing a parallel to today, with the new age of technology, what are the ramifications when similar economic positions, such as the common factory laborer or uber driver, are invented out of existence and replaced with new technology? Will this socio-economic shift be a driver of progress, as it was before? or will it upend the system too dramatically, causing more problems than it solves?

3_Questions Concerning Technology_pg35_Heidegger arrives at the essence of technology:

“Because the essence is nothing technological, essential reflection upon technology and decisive confrontation with it must happen in a realm that is, on one had, akin to the essence of technology and, on the other, fundamentally different from it.”

This conclusion confuses me, especially with the nested definition of the essence of technology. What is meant by this definition that, to me, does not provide any clarity on the issue?