Are links to other places really always necessary?
First objection: Why should a relational theory of meaning should 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?
First answer: We live our desires within a combination of self-aware pluralism, a 'modern' need/desire for self-justification, and a Heideggerian ontological knowledge of the conditions that make our being possible, plus a push for authenticity. These keep any horizon from being simply final.
Second objection: Even if a place must have these constitutive connections, can't it be lived in an enclosed way#? (Ignorance, ideology, illusion, inauthentiticy, bad faith, and so on?)
Second answer: Places can indeed be lived in an enclosed way, but their structural complexity* provides a constant lure for greater openness.
(c) David Kolb, 1 August 2001