An idle issue for lawyers or policy-makers;

Does everyone strive to belong? Must everything belong? Couldn’t there be something, which belonged to no one? Couldn’t there be someone, who belonged nowhere? Even if it were only … simply … a matter of rights?

There has been, after all, a thorough and extensive endeavour on basing and applying our rights on the material or personal aspects of our lives. However, we are dealing with an issue of belonging altogether, whether ownership or duty is in question. Can there be rights without bringing ownership or duty into question?

(//personal excerpt// a simple rhetorical question on our rights when objectively conflicted with ownership; let it be something or someone)

Is Baudrillard still applicable today?

We understand the way an instant myth-ification on everything that surrounds us could be taken as reality. Symbols devoid of their original meaning, metaphors interpreted as solid robust terms and hiper-realised by media, politics and economic models.

When the stakes of reality no longer apply and concepts acquire a futile concrete sense then, the possibility of exploring myth in metaphor devoid of reality is defied. By making everything real we face hiper-reality

(//personal excerpt// understood under the spirit of ‘Simulacra and Simulacrum’ by Jean Baudrillard)

Some first steps about conscious experience;

Thinking… The thing about thought is that as curious as humans are, we become deeply intrigued by it. Same old conundrum; What about thinking (curiosity) about thinking (intrigue) about thought?

(//personal excerpt// a simple nonchalant introduction)