Should I Consider A Second Dog?

Daniel Lavery makes a compelling case!

In case of second dog, one resigns as coach-minder-supervisor-sole-proprietor and enters into a franchisee agreement with the first dog. Second dog raises interesting possibilities on the subjects of dominionism, animality, non-human interests, duty-towards-self, duty-towards-unself, duty-towards-other-selves, domesticity, structure, order of precedence, and where should second dog sleep (on the bed, with the first dog, and with you, over a special blanket, so your blanket remains cleaner). Sleep in a big bed with your dogs, near a roaring fire tended high by the servants of your body and your fiefdom, and see to it that the rushes in the feasting-hall are replaced daily with fresh hay.

It is not good that a dog should be alone. To solve the problem of dog, one must consider second dog. With second dog, there is a possibility of direct dog-to-dog relation, without human mediation; alien delights await. Two dogs can make a decision in concert, confer in committee, register robust disapproval, deliver admonishments, incite and invite gamesomeness, and develop new types of language, all while you, the proprietor of two dogs, need think of nothing, become a dog owner emeritus, allowing your deputy manager to interpret and maintain your interests on the trading floor. Also, you will have two dogs to look at, with your two eyes. You can look at them both. There are two dogs to look at now. Objects which could once be only investigated, gnawed, and discarded are now ripe for conflict, pressing, pulling, entautening, contest, evasion. Notice your dog notice your dog. Endless recursions of looking, with introduction of second dog, dog-as-mirror and dog-as-mirrored. Dog, seconded.