Hello friends, I think Charles's summing up the exchange is very useful. I only disagree with the final conclusion. There is a good deal of literature that challenges the Kantian tradition. Much of it, however, is from the Marxist, phenomenological, or postsructural perspective. For my money, the most useful articulation of space is in Merleau-Ponty's _Phenomenology of Perception_. In this piece he explicates space as a type of "depth" dependent on our connections to each other (as opposed to our distances from each other). Under this conception, the internet is a real space but it has a specific material manifestation in the ways that it connects us. This has been extremely fruitful in my work because it then allows one to interrogate what exactly are these connections? What type of communications do they allow for? Do the promote weak or strong ties (please note, this is not equivalent to determining)? What types of "noises" are prevalent? How can we design more social equitable spaces? Other thinkers that have been very useful in thinking about space: LeFebvre is useful for thinking about how social spaces are created. De Certeau is useful for thinking about how individuals navigate spaces. Elizabeth Grosz's work has been useful for thinking about space in relationship to embodiment. Alphonso Lingis's "Introduction" to Merleau-Ponty's _Visible and Invisible_ is very useful as well. A good introduction to different ways to thinking about space can be found in Crang and Thrifts _Thinking About Space_. Also, I would like to plug Rob Shield's work in this area. He wrote one of the best secondary works on Lefebvre and now edits the journal _Space and Culture_. Yours because the internet is a space- Phillip Phillip Thurtle http://www.carleton.ca/~pthurtle/