Every time I take an international trip and reinforce my physical sense of the world as a single, connected physical planet (views out the window of vast oceans, continental shores etc) I am reminded of the utter bullshittiness of anti-globalism... (1/few)
-
Show this thread
-
Sure, it takes a certain amount of money/privilege to access this sense. Even the cheapest flight that gives you a view of say the Pacific ocean or the physical non-fragmentedness of the Middle East is several hundred $. That does not make the "globe" in globalism a lie (2/few)
2 replies 0 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
Just because it's privileged people who are able to see and construct the world as a single, connected place does not mean that construct is false. Just because it's underprivileged people who have a narrower sense of place doesn't mean that narrower sense _isn't_ false (3/few)
2 replies 6 retweets 33 likesShow this thread -
Just because "globalism" has become a synonym for a particular flavor of aristocratic elitist power emanating out of Davos doesn't mean Planet Earth is actually 200 little balls instead of one big ball. All globalisms have a powerful phenomenological foundation (4/few)
1 reply 0 retweets 29 likesShow this thread -
Whenever I'm tempted to forget this and take dumbass nationalist boundaries and reified egregores too seriously, I consider animals and their ways of being on the planet. Like Arctic Terns that migrate 70,000 km roundtrips from pole to pole WITHOUT EVER GOING TO DAVOS (5/few)
2 replies 10 retweets 55 likesShow this thread -
Or cats, which have colonized earth as well as humans. Or erupting volcanoes that affect weather 1000s of km away. Or New World vegetables that are now part of cuisines worldwide. Earth is a far more deeply connected place than our *political* experience of it suggests (6/few)
1 reply 4 retweets 39 likesShow this thread -
tldr: Don't let shitty people with limited perspectives tell you that wanting to experience the planet as a single place is an evil thing or that their maps are the territory. (end/few)
4 replies 6 retweets 79 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
How can one reconcile globalism with the basic human urge to territorialize? It seems like statehood is a compromise and somewhat of an attempt to minimize territorial violence.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @simpolism
I don’t think there’s a basic human urge to territorialize. The reverse in fact. We’re more nomadic than sessile.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
You don't feel a profound comfort in familiar surroundings? I recall a ribbonfarm post about how you always find a Starbucks/wifi-enabled coffee shop to work in, no matter where you go. What if one's comforting place only has a single instantiation on the entire planet?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I learned Starbucks-comfort as a 23 year old adult. I can easily adapt to other environments. If someone can really can only find a sense of home in one fixed place they are probably severely dysfunctional or mentally ill.
-
-
Replying to @vgr
If someone's main epistemological mode is based on metis, then they might find it hard to adapt to living somewhere else. e.g. if your fishing profession is enabled by a long, local narrative around breeding cycles upriver, this is not easy to adapt to other locations.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simpolism @vgr
Obviously the fisherman example is contrived and extreme, but I do think that the extent to which one's knowledge and activities are rooted in traditional/regional culture seems to determine the extent to which they'll be able to "find home" elsewhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.