This chapter re-premises our idea of the world, explains the philosophy of worlding and planetization, and interrogates the ontologics of the local and the global. Ghosh claims that there is no local or global in our thinking and doing of literature; rather, he proposes the idea of the more than global. Working around thinkers like Karen Barad, Jean Luc-Nancy, Derrida, Heidegger and others, Ghosh introduces a new concept called intraactive transculturality. This makes a critical call on the universals of comparative literature, or comparative philosophy. Crosscultural understanding is not merely about reaching out for the other through the dialogic interplay among cultures, civilizations, and concepts. It is also about judging and orienting one’s peculiar nativism, cultural exclusiveness, constellative patterns of beliefs, manners, and languages in an intraactive negotiation involving unpeace, the exces sensible that inscribes the contesting territories of power, domination, obscurity, obfuscation, and elision across time and historical periods. The chapter introduces a unique reading of William Wordsworth’s “Daffodils” through certain paradigms of Sanskrit poetics to rewrite the local-global problematic. What kind of more than global entanglements—poetics of relationality—exist in our negotiation with “Daffodils” and certain paradigms of Sanskrit poetics? How can we re-premise the borders separating the local from the global? The chapter challenges our conventional notion of world literature, or the globalization of literature, to argue a fresh way of experiencing literature today.

Miller begins this chapter with a fairly sharp dialogical differentiation between what he says about globalization and world literature and what Ranjan Ghosh says in his chapter 5. Miller holds that a special theory should be derived in each case from the terminology of the text at hand in light of its specific, surrounding, historical, biographical, and linguistic context. World literature’s time has certainly come again in the current development of a new discipline called world literature suitable for a time of globalization. The new discipline faces some challenges, however: the challenge of translation, the challenge of what literary works to choose as representative, the challenge of making a universal definition of literature. Explaining the reasons for Nietzsche’s rejection in The Birth of Tragedy of Goethe’s Weltliteratur, when that rejection is put into the context of The Birth of Tragedy as a whole and of other writing by Nietzsche, is a good example of the theoretical problems that the renewed discipline of world literature will need to take into account.