Piranesi Question

Hey guys, I still have about 90 pages to go but I was curious about the novel's intention. There's most likely a plethora of interpretations and I was wondering if this is possibly one of the author's intention.

In the juxtaposition of Piranesi and the Other, I see this as the fundamental difference: Piranesi deeply appreciates the environment and its wonder. In contrast, the Other is purely motivated by self-interest and lacks appreciation. His sole focus seems to be figuring out how to extrapolate something from the enviroment/House, while Piranesi doesn't view the House as a puzzle that needs to be solved and used to one's own benefit. Rather, Piranesi views the House with deep reverence. In addition, once we discover information about Laurence and his other world theory and how he wants to return to an ancient world that represents knowledge forgotten -- an ancient knowledge that explicitly relates to treating the environment with reverence -- and how this world turns out to be the House, it seems Clarke is suggesting one of the ancient ways of thinking that we have completely forgotten is our inability to treat nature as another human? Something that deserves respect and reverence? Unlike the Other's dismissive view of the environment as a canvas for his self-interest, Piranesi's deep respect for its beauty and wonder seems to represent the ancient wisdom we have forgotten.

Sorry, it's a bit of a word salad but I needed to get my thoughts off my chest.