Are links to other places really always necessary for the identity of a place?
-- Why should a relational theory of meaning be applied to the place itself, leading to a yet wider web? Why not let the place be a final horizon*, as it often seems to have been historically? Why should the place itself -- or some finite assembly of mutually qualifying places -- appear as one item against a yet larger horizon?
We live our desires within a combination of self-aware pluralism, with a 'modern' need/desire for self-justification
, and an implicit awareness of the conditions that make our being possible, plus a push for authenticity. These keep any horizon from being simply final.
-- Even if a place must have these constitutive connections, can't it be lived in an enclosed way, through Ignorance, ideology, illusion, inauthenticity, bad faith, and so on?
-- Places can indeed be lived in an enclosed way, but their structural complexity
provides a constant lure for greater openness.