Comparing topographies: Across paths/around place: A reply to Casey

by the vulnerability of place, which re ects human contingency and mortality: “the fragility and mortality of human life must be seen as nothing other than the same fragility and mortality that attaches to the places and spaces of human dwelling and just as inevitable” (PE, 191). 6. Malpas’s use of “event” ties it to objective space: see PE, 35, 168. In my own usage, it signiŽ es the coming together of space and time in place—in one occurrence. See The Fate of Place (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 309 ff., 339. 7. For this phrase, see PE, 22, 33, 170. 8. Malpas employs “room” only rarely, e.g., at PE, 64, where it signiŽ es what subjective and objective space share. For the broader reaches of “room,” see The Fate of Place, 87, 122–3, 257–8, 261, 266, 282. 9. The phrase “the character of places as unitary structures” is employed at PE, 185. 10. On places as contained in their own frames, and on their folding-out and folding-in character, see PE, 172.