I enjoyed the reading for its symantic slanting on the difference between space and place. What became apparent was that space was in a way the actual, and place was what we have been led to interpret. The difference is that place is given character and and an egocentric purpose, while space is a simple area of existence.
It was interesting for him to include animals idea of place. What that made me think of was warthogs and thier bunkers. The behavioral differences illicited by a warthog when in the bunker and when away from one are incredibly. One place directs a warthog to be more aggressive, while the other does not.
As for his discusssion on an infants experience, he makes claims based of research that has recently been disputed. As for and infant not being able to "distinguish familiar to unfamiliar faces", hes is incorrect. This statement is a far different from claim then stating an infants distress when with a stranger. Further more, when drawing conclusions from infants drawings, he fails to encorporate the possiblity that the drawing may not be an actual measure of their capacities. Instead the drawing may reflect the inability to draw said concepts by simple artistic deficiency and not conceptual deficiency.