In Australia there is a phrase to discuss the settlers success in “overcoming the tyranny of distance“. In Australia where the countryside is an outgrowth of the city which is a local expression of empire. At least officially.
So one answer would be that the network is the empire, but there is no local locality, only ghosts of the local, like sylphs, or identity brands, the local expression is global.
This ignores that beyond the countryside, the bush, the outback, the wilderness… the dreaming that all of it relies on for that success is ignored at our peril.
In other news Melbourne recently became the largest population centre in Australia the same year that India overtook China. South Asians are the biggest immigrant group in Melbourne and east Asians in Sydney.
I enjoy the reading. Thanks for sharing it! (https://thegentlelaw.substack.com/p/nous-gnosis-and-sophia)
Lots of good points and thoughts in there. Question: what happens when “local” is no longer tied to geography but becomes a matter of network logic?
In Australia there is a phrase to discuss the settlers success in “overcoming the tyranny of distance“. In Australia where the countryside is an outgrowth of the city which is a local expression of empire. At least officially.
So one answer would be that the network is the empire, but there is no local locality, only ghosts of the local, like sylphs, or identity brands, the local expression is global.
This ignores that beyond the countryside, the bush, the outback, the wilderness… the dreaming that all of it relies on for that success is ignored at our peril.
In other news Melbourne recently became the largest population centre in Australia the same year that India overtook China. South Asians are the biggest immigrant group in Melbourne and east Asians in Sydney.
Network effect?