At the heart of your reflection is a tension between two forces: on one hand, the aesthetic and perceptual capacities (aisthēsis) that open us up to relational, transformative understanding of the world; and on the other, technics, as both condition and corrupter of that openness.You also follow Stiegler in affirming that technics is not neutral. It co-constitutes perception, it is what makes worlds appear—meaningful, memorable, temporal. But technics also risks deforming what it enables. It can short-circuit attention, automate it, proletarianize perception itself—rendering us consumers of sensations rather than co-generators of sense.

Stiegler's fear, which you powerfully echo, is that symbols have been captured. Our capacities for sympathy and shared meaning-making have been appropriated by industrial, financial, and algorithmic technics that manipulate attention, thereby reshaping ethical possibility.

You’re pointing to something like symbolic necrosis, where once-generative forms—stereotypes, values, ideals—are hollowed out and weaponized in slow violence. This symbolic warfare operates through presentism, abstraction, and the disintegration of shared temporalities. And yet—there is still a dormant power in aisthēsis. It can restore joint attention, individuation, and worlds in common, but only if it is coupled with material transformation: of technologies, economies, and modes of mediation. This is both a hope and a condition: aesthetic inquiry is not salvation on its own. It can become a form of retreat and complicity if it is not bound to the real material capacities of life, perception, and political economy. Your final turn is crucial. You distinguish:

• Linear, industrialized temporalities, which flatten experience into surface-level engagement and render memory inert,

• From recursive, deep-time practices—like essay-writing, or poetic return—which fold time, meaning, and relation into one another.

Technics, in this light, is not the enemy but the terrain. In its inscriptions, it gives time a form, but it also makes that form vulnerable to capture. If memory is stabilized outside of us, it can be either enriched or appropriated.