About my IQ, and about what kind of music I dance to.

10:18 PM 4/2/11

These are a couple of questions about myself:

1. How high is my IQ?
2. What kind of music do I dance to?

The last time I tested my IQ, on Tickle.com, it was 140. I took a really long time on the test and fooled around and complained about how the multiple-choice questions don't show the answer that I really want to say, because the answer is 'other' or 'none of the above.'

Before that, when I took the test as a child, I was told that the number was 'above 135,' and they could not know exactly what my IQ was unless they did further testing. So I got the impression that the standard IQ test isn't the only IQ test there is, and they have to just give you some kind of estimate if it's over 135 or 140 or whatever.

I was put into Intellectually Gifted class, and later on, Musically Gifted and Artistically Gifted classes as well. I called myself 'Multi-Talented.' I also took advanced placement classes in high school.

I went to college for a few years studying first Biology, then Psychology, then 'General Studies,' and then I dropped out. I was having a lot of problems and wasn't getting my work done.

That is the reason why I myself don't go back to try college again - I don't know for sure whether I will really finish it, or whether I will have problems and drop out, and be in debt a huge amount of money. So I like to learn things that cost very little money to learn, which can be applied and used right away, starting small, which is why I'm so excited about bookkeeping.

Dancing: Why am I asking about that? Because 'they' were noticing that I really liked a particular song that came on the radio the other day. I've mentioned several times that I listen to the radio in the car mainly for the purpose of getting rid of whatever song is running through my head. (And no, quitting the radio completely, in order to stop hearing any songs in my head, doesn't work. The song running through my head is an attack from 'them' and it has no connection to whether I've been listening to the radio recently or not. Not only that, but I also hear the radio playing everywhere I go, like in the grill area at work, or on the overhead speakers when I was at Weis, so I will always be exposed to some horrible song that I hate, everywhere I go.)

The song that came on the radio was 'Rolling in the Deep,' or 'We Could've Had It All' (I think RITD is the official title) by Adele. The drums in that song seem to be real drums, acoustic, played by a real person instead of a drum machine.

When you play real drums, the tiny imperfections in the rhythm catch your brain's attention BETTER THAN the absolutely perfect, digital drums that occur exactly at the same moment every time. The tiny imperfections are not just a mere 'quirk' or something that make you feel fond of the quaintness of an acoustic song. It's more than that. It is essential for hypnotizing the musical part of your brain, and I don't know the technical terms for this because it's been a long time since I read about it. Your brain expects to hear a beat every few moments, and the beat is just a tiny bit off, not exactly at the right moment, and your brain notices this, and keeps on paying attention. But when the beat is on exactly the same moment, flawlessly (from a drum machine), your brain gets bored and is thinking to itself that nothing unusual or important is going on, and nothing is worth paying attention to.

Propellerheads Reason has something called a 'groove' which you can apply to your drumbeats to make them slightly irregular and more natural sounding. I've never tried it, and haven't written any unfinished song fragments in a couple of years for a variety of reasons. But I think that most of the people writing the horrible, awful, unbearable hip-hop crap on the radio are using drum machines without bothering to do anything as complicated as applying a groove to make the beat slightly irregular. That's too subtle for them.

I also like it when the song sounds like it's really in a room somewhere. When all the instruments sound like they are up close, all in the same place, and the sound is 'compressed' so that it's very loud and the volume level is all in the same range (there's not much difference between the quietest volume and the loudest volume parts of the song), it doesn't sound as good to me as a bunch of real instruments playing in a room with space and with some variations in volume.

I like the slight irregularities of real people clapping their hands to the beat, but I am very bored by a drum machine playing fake handclaps in perfect rhythm. There is a sort of heavy weightiness to the delay of the beat when somebody doesn't clap at exactly the right millisecond when you expect it, and you have to slow down a bit and catch up with the handclap, and everyone has to pay attention to everyone else's handclaps to keep them all together. Your brain is listening to everyone else's handclaps so that you can keep in time with them. That is the reason why you listen very closely for the slightest difference in the rhythm, when somebody isn't on the same moment as you. You pay very close attention to the difference and you're trying to fix it and adjust your own handclaps. The imperfection is what makes you participate in the music playing.

I have my electronic music computer program, and I love it, and I am grateful for it - I can write songs on my computer without bothering the neighbors by playing instruments - but I also view electronic songs as sort of a 'rough draft' of songs that ought to eventually, someday be played on real instruments instead. An electronic song can sound great and amazing as it is, but it would be even better on real instruments played by real people. Usually people don't do things that can ONLY be done using electronic synthesizers. If you make some unusual sound that only a synth can do, that's one thing, but most of the time, people are just playing 'sounds' and it really doesn't matter whether it's played on a synth or on some other instruments. They are not using the unique abilities of the synthesizer, so the song doesn't have to be played on a synthesizer and only a synthesizer.

There is a real difference between analog synthesizers, and the digital simulations of analog synthesizers. When I hear an old analog synth playing in a song, it doesn't sound like the simulated synths in Propellerheads Reason or in other electronic songs. Propellerheads people talked about this in the forum - it was a 'frequently asked question' - because a lot of people were saying that Reason sucks because A, B, and C, and the most common thing was 'it doesn't sound as good as the real ones, blah blah,' and Propellerheads defended themselves and explained that you had to do more stuff to the synthesizer besides just simply play the note - you had to give it reverb, and so on. The synths aren't meant to just be used 'dry' like that. You have to add some effects to them. But I still believe that real analog synths probably sound somewhat different from a digital simulation of an analog synth, with all the same settings and the same effects applied.

I know that I can hear the difference between cassette tapes and CDs. Record players also sound better than CDs. CDs have lost so much of the sound. MP3s destroy a lot of the sound, too. A violin recorded in digital audio and then put on a CD isn't going to sound as good as a violin recorded on magnetic tape. I can hear the high-pitched plucking sounds are missing. It bothers me to hear the violin playing without the high-pitched plucking and scratching noises as they touch the strings. Those little noises are part of the violin's expressiveness.

This particular song on the radio was making me jump up and down in my seat, and pound the floor with my foot, so 'they' were asking me about that. I actually don't like the melody that much (Rolling In The Deep), and the words to the song are so-so. The only thing I like is the pounding drum. They did what all the hip-hop writers are TRYING to do when they use a drum machine and give it a big, loud bass, a huge loud sound that pounds the walls of your car from the stereo, or that booms out of a club that you walk by on the street. Those horrible drum machines DON'T make me want to dance.

Dancing is something that happens to you almost by itself. You don't CHOOSE to dance. When dancing starts to happen, it happens TO you. And those drum machines don't do that to me at all. When it's real, you just start tapping your feet and bouncing with the beat of the song without really trying to. But I've been to a club, years and years ago, and it was an hour or so of torture. I don't drink, so I wasn't able to drink myself into a state of indifference about whether the music sucked or not.

So I was clearly conscious the entire time of just how horribly the music sucked, and of how totally ineffective it was at prompting me to dance. I wondered how it could be that no one else seemed to notice or care about this. They were all dancing, but not very expressively. They were just sort of jumping up and down to the beat. When I dance for real, I do all kinds of weird stuff that probably looks really stupid, as I have short legs and a long body and my center of gravity is too high up, so I tend to lose my balance and fall over if I trip over my own feet, and that kind of thing. But still, I try. I do things like spin around, and move my arms in all directions, in addition to just jumping up and down or tapping my feet. I try to do 'tricks' of some kind and feel frustrated because I don't really know how to do them and because my messed-up center of gravity won't let me.

I became aware of my too-high center of gravity because of two things: First, my mom mentioned to me long ago that she herself has a 'long body with short legs,' and she noticed that I do, too, so I was aware that 'having a long body with short legs is a phenomenon as such that exists, something that can happen to you,' and this is less desirable than having long legs with a short body. Then, I took a gymnastics class, but there was one thing I couldn't do: I couldn't do a back walkover. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't do it, and I felt insecure trying to do a back handspring, too. I always had to have a spotter holding my weight up to keep me from falling, and I would get partway back but be totally unable to kick my leg up over. (I need a diagram.) The center of gravity is EVERYTHING when you are doing a back walkover. You have to kick your leg high enough to move your center of gravity over top of your body and to the other side, so that it pulls you the rest of the way over and then you can stand up. I couldn't kick my leg up that far. My legs were short. No matter what I did, the center of gravity would never go all the way over my body so that I could complete the movement and stand up again.

After observing this, I noticed that it caused problems with dancing, too. I would sometimes try to spin around and then would topple over because my gravity was too high.

So... I TRY to dance expressively, but my body isn't quite right for it. I have to dance with people who are forgiving of the fact that I try to dance expressively and take risks and do strange movements that other people aren't doing, like spinning around and waving my arms, while everybody else is just doing nothing but bouncing up and down, slightly, and maybe raising their hands up when the horrible, unbearable hip-hop singer commands them to 'put yo haaaaaaaands up!' Bouncing up and down, and putting yo' hands up, isn't enough of a dance for me, so I am too bored to even bother getting up and trying to dance for about 90% of the songs playing in the club.

This was in, maybe, 1998? Quite a while ago. The music is even worse now than it was then. I also went to a club once in 2008, I think, and it was AWFUL. They were playing familiar oldies songs, the exact same songs that I was forced to endure hearing on the Spamzak intercom at work every day... things like 'Born In The USA.' I'm supposed to get *REALLY REALLY EXCITED AND HAPPY* and start clapping my hands with the beat because BORN IN THE USA is playing! WOW!!!! Why on earth would I go to a club to hear the same exact oldies songs that I am forced to hear every day, except they're now being played at unbearably loud deafening volume by a local band? This is a GREAT LIFE MOMENT for me! I will remember this concert forever!

I danced when I was in college. I had a bunch of cassette tapes. They're in a box in my closet right now. I've wanted to move them over to MP3, but that's a project, and I haven't gotten to it.

I had a little Irish slipjig with a 9/8 rhythm, and it surprised me to hear this strange and unfamilar, incomprehensible rhythm. Actually, the reason it surprised me, more than anything, was because the song started out as an ordinary 4/4 rhythm song. Then partway through, it suddenly changes to the 9/8 slipjig. This is something they often do with those little Irish songs - they squash several songs together into a medley and play all of them one after another without stopping. So midway through, the beat suddenly slowed down a bit, changed itself, and I was excited because it was different. It was like, 'Something VERY IMPORTANT is happening here.' The song was doing one thing, but then it drastically totally changed, so this is very important and exciting. It's on the CD 'Silver Apples of the Moon,' and I don't think anyone else will be very amazed by that particular song as much as I was when I was 20 years old or however old I was when I first found it, ages ago. The name of the song I can't recall. It's an instrumental song, no words, just a harp playing with a hammered dulcimer or maybe a guitar - I forget. I think it's a harp and dulcimer.

I tried and tried to understand and remember the song. I kept getting lost as I tried to follow the beat. Finally, after listening a few times, I understood it, and I automatically knew the right moment when I was supposed to 'slip,' which is what the real, official dancers do when they are doing the 'real' slipjig moves and tricks.

After discovering that song, I was fascinated with the 9/8 slipjig and swore that I wanted to write one of my own someday. I also noticed that I like dancing to the 6/8 beat too.

None of the radio songs use anything except the 4/4 beat. I'm not the only person who has complained about that fact. Other people have written (on the net, while I've been browsing in the past in random places) that they don't like the 'four on the floor' beat and have tried to make different beats so that you aren't hearing exactly the same beat that you hear all the time that doesn't make you want to dance. They describe ways to change the beat to make it more exciting (even though it's still a 4/4 beat) so that it urges you to dance to it.

I have a very strong opinion on this, as I utterly, completely, totally LOATHE about 80% of the music I hear, and then I just sort of tolerate most of that last 20%, or partly enjoy it but wish that it would have done this or that, instead of doing what it did (like when I say I wish I could remake 'Firework' with acoustic instruments).

It's interesting to find out that Michael Jackson was an EIE, my socionic conflict type. The very first instant that I heard a song by Michael Jackson, and found out that he existed, in the mid-eighties, I utterly and completely loathed him and I had contempt for anyone who liked Michael Jackson's music. I remember I was in third grade when MJ was popular, and we were hearing things like 'Thriller' and 'Billie Jean Is Not My Lover,' (I don't recall exactly which songs were there during what time period) and I HATED those songs and that's when I decided to call myself a 'nonconformist,' a word that I learned from my brother, because I 'wasn't going along with the crowd' when everybody else in school loved MJ and I absolutely couldn't stand him. I think the worst thing about his music was that 'Ow!' noise he made in his songs. He would just shout 'Ow!' loudly in a high pitched squeal - I mean, what the hell? I have no desire to sing along with a song where somebody - and a MALE - gives a high-pitched 'ow!' as part of the song. And the moonwalk? Again, what the hell? Maybe I could KINDA get into it, maybe, but I already hated the songs, so I wasn't going to get into doing the moonwalk to a song that I hated. I guess it isn't inconceivable that I could do the moonwalk to some other song by some other singer, maybe. So yeah, I felt the socionic conflict there, long before I even knew what a socionic conflict was. I just loathed every word he uttered, every noise he made, every movement of his body, every nuance of every tone of his voice.

Then later on when he started doing weird things to his face and his hair and his body - changing his skin color and claiming that he had some kind of medical disorder - he probably was bleaching his skin with chemicals (I really don't know - I'm just guessing), and I've read about that, and after you use the bleach, it messes up your skin color permanently, so that if you ever stop bleaching, your skin gets these big weird blotches and irregular colorations. They tell people to never, ever use skin bleach, in the parts of the world where dark-skinned people are doing that (you can google it). Then he started doing all that plastic surgery, and straightening his hair, and by the end of it all, he didn't look human, and of course I'm not the only one who was horrified and revolted by this, because by that time, most other people would agree with me that he was doing something horrible and disgusting to his body, and it was 'too much.'

I felt pity for him, because by the end, he was in constant pain. He was drug addicted and unable to withdraw, and unable to sleep at all. I think that some of the constant pain was caused by all the things he was doing to his body and the chemicals he was using. When you inject anything into your skin, anything at all, it poisons you forever and you can't get it out, so I am opposed to all tattoos and fake breast implants and lip implants and things like that. There are all sorts of disgusting and dangerous things you can do with plastic surgery, and after you do them, your body will never be healthy again. You can try to remove the implants, but they will probably leave little traces of poison inside you forever, and the skin and flesh and tissues were cut and changed and stretched in a way to accommodate the implanted objects, so even if you remove, for instance, breast implants, your breasts won't ever be the way they were before.

I'm also opposed to 'legitimate' implanted objects that aren't being used for cosmetic reasons. These include things like dental fillings, pacemakers, defibrillators, and metal plates and metal pins put into your bones if you have an accident. However, I can't recommend any alternative because I don't know enough about it. It's the steel plates and things that bother me - I wish I knew a better way to help someone whose bones have been shattered, and I don't know a way. I don't think it's good for you to have a steel plate implanted in your body, or steel pins in a broken bone. I wish I had alternatives that I could recommend so that people wouldn't make those mistakes. Sometimes it's better to just leave it alone, instead of doing surgery and trying to 'fix' things. Sometimes, the surgery really is able to fix something. But I am cautious and skeptical and pessimistic about that - I tend to think that leaving it alone might be better a larger percent of the time. And I am not always convinced that the dangers and tradeoffs of getting surgery and implanted objects really are worth the benefits you gain.

Doctors don't listen to you if you tell them that you're having a symptom. (Note: While rereading, I noticed that I abandoned this tangent and started complaining about something else. I was going to say: If you tell the doctor that your implanted steel plate is causing that part of your body to hurt constantly, they will reply that it hurts because you were injured there. They don't understand that the implanted object itself might be causing irritation or pain or chemical poisoning.)

If the symptom wasn't discovered during a double-blind, placebo-controlled, government-sponsored experiment, then that symptom does not exist, and you're just a crazy hypochondriac imagining things. Not all doctors are THAT bad, but some of them are, and I have met some of those doctors and I have tried to explain some of my problems to them, back in the days, years and years ago, when I was still trying to get help by going to doctors. I mistakenly believed that a doctor is a knowledgeable person who will help you TROUBLESHOOT your illnesses. Ha! Doctors are programmed to ignore everything you say and give you a prescription for a pill and send you out the door as fast as possible... again, not all doctors, but some.

If I had lots of money, I might talk to doctors again, but it's hard to force myself to try doing something when I believe it's hopeless from the beginning.

I'd also want to find a dentist who will remove my two dental fillings and leave the cavities open and unfilled. I will just have open cavities and leave them that way. They never should have been drilled-and-filled. You should leave the cavity the way it is, and treat it by drastically changing the diet, and by quitting all of the drugs that cause cavities.

Teeth do remineralize, although it might not be as miraculous as some people on the internet claim that it is. I've had times when my teeth hurt badly and felt like they had cavities, and then I would start eating nutritiously again and stop drinking coffee (or whatever) and my 'cavities' would stop hurting. But if I had gone to a dentist and said 'These teeth are hurting!' the dentist would have probably removed several more of my teeth or drilled and filled a whole bunch of temporary cavities that hadn't broken through the tooth surface yet. It's not necessary to do anything to a cavity that hasn't even broken through the surface of the tooth yet. But I didn't know that, and I let the dentist trick me into believing that something horrible would happen (the cavity would destroy the tooth root and I'd need a root canal) if I allowed the cavity in my canine tooth to continue.

Why is it that this cavity is SO CLOSE to the root of the tooth, but it's always 'not quite there yet,' every time you go to the dentist, and they are 'lucky enough to find this and catch it in time?' How is it that they just coincidentally happen to catch the cavity at the exact moment JUST BEFORE it destroys your tooth root? There is a reason for this, and it's called *IGNORANCE*.

Dentists apparently DON'T KNOW something that Weston Price (and surely, lots of other dentists) studied and found out about years and years ago. He found out that the tooth creates a wall of new dentin to protect the root against an incoming cavity. If a cavity is developing near the root of a tooth, the root will use whatever minerals it can get, and it will create a barrier which closes off the root of the tooth. You might see that a cavity appears to be 'right next to' the tooth root, and it's 'just about to penetrate' to the root of the tooth, but that's because there is a wall of dentin which is constantly forming and constantly building and being rebuilt, all the time, over and over again, to protect the root against the cavity. So you can survive for a very long time with some partial cavities that seem like they're close to the root of the tooth, but in reality the tooth is rebuilding and keeping the cavity out of the root, and you don't feel any pain and don't know the cavity is even there and you can't even see the cavity. This dentist told me that I had that kind of cavity in my canine tooth, and I was totally surprised because it was painless and I couldn't see it and I didn't even KNOW I had a cavity. So now, I have two dental fillings instead of just one.

That's enough for now, I guess.

I'm going to neglect to pay the copper.net bill and see what happens. In a few weeks, as they notice that I'm not paying the bill, I'll start to get a bill reminder in my email. And then I won't be able to dial up anymore. So I won't be writing six or seven long obsessive woe-is-me blogs every single day the way I have been doing. The goal is to force me to focus on some of the other goals and projects that I desperately need to get done.

I've been off the net several times before. I already don't watch any television at all (which is why I was so excited when I read that RDL doesn't watch TV). I was off the net several times in the past - once, it was in maybe 2001? when I was having harassment from computer hackers - before I was aware that my brain and body were being electronically attacked too. I didn't know about that yet. So I was worried about hackers harassing me and spying on me everywhere I went, because they did things at the offices where I was working, too, when I went on temp jobs and had to use the computers there.

During that time, I disconnected from the net so that I would stay away from the hackers, and so that I would be forced to stop writing emails to 'Nerdman,' the guy I met in a chatroom, who I believed (at one time) was the hacker, and I wasn't aware that I was being electronically mind-controlled and forced to get the urges to keep sending him emails when I didn't want to. I stopped it by disconnecting from the net, and back then, I didn't know how to use the net at the library. So I was totally and completely off the net for a while, but I got back on.

Then I was off the net again in 2009 when I moved into this apartment and hadn't gotten my computer set up yet, for a few months, and during that time, I got a lot of studying and learning done, as I was doing the Schaum's Outline of Bookkeeping and Accounting, instead of spending hours and hours online writing blogs and reading stuff.

I am not rejecting the internet as such completely. There are lots of things that you can find only on the internet. There is a lot of great music being given away for free by underground musicians, and I don't mean 'stolen' music, I mean the music they themselves wrote and have chosen to give away for free. You will never hear it on the radio. There are things like that which are uniquely on the net, and I don't want to get rid of all that stuff completely and forever. However, if you are using cheap dialup, as I do, to avoid spending a lot of money for the net, and to protect yourself against the bad habit of spending EVEN MORE TIME online playing YouTube videos and online music and video games, which will add even more hours and hours and hours to the time you spend online, then you don't have a good enough internet connection to download music very easily.

If only I could somehow restrict the high-bandwidth internet use to nothing but downloading music. But there is also the process of searching for music and finding things you like and playing them and listening to them, and that takes time too. My brother John wrote an automatic search bot that looks for music online.

But I'm very, very, very picky, and I have specific things I'm looking for, and you don't find 'tags' on music very often to describe things like '9/8 time signature' or whatever, if you are looking only for songs that have a particular time signature. (And by the way, I found some other Irish slipjigs online, and somehow, they weren't as good as the one song I had by that one particular author on that one particular album! So it isn't even enough merely to look for a particular time signature - that's analogous to using socionics to look for your 'dual' without also looking for all the non-socionic factors that affect the relationship.) Music isn't tagged enough. You can't find the attributes that describe the type of music you want. Some of these attributes are hard to describe in words. Some of them involve the structures of the song itself.

I love the book by William Russo (with Jeffrey Ainis and David Stevenson), called 'Composing Music - A New Approach.' He has rules about the notes and rhythms which are helpful for inexperienced composers. The rules are designed to protect you so that you don't make common mistakes during a time when you don't know any better. I've actually heard some of these mistakes in songs on the radio and I could feel that the mistake bothered me. But if I hadn't read that book, I wouldn't have known that an actual 'rule' was being broken.

An example is a song that I sort of liked a little bit, but also found rather annoying. It was 'This time, baby, I'll be bulletproof.' I don't recall the real title, but that was the chorus. During the part where she sings 'This time, baby, I'll beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...... bulleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeettttt.... prooooooof,' it's too long and drawn out. The length of the notes is wrong in contrast to the short notes that were before that, and the notes are too long while the words being sung are too short. In those long notes, there was plenty of time for her to sing, like, six or seven more words, but it was all one word. That song wasn't popular on the radio for very long. It's just annoying to listen to at that moment in the song.

That was a common mistake that William Russo described and made rules against. When you become experienced, you know when and how to break the rules. He also has concepts that aren't really 'rules' as such, but are just a sort of guiding idea, such as 'Less is more.' He urges you to keep it simple in the beginning, to avoid getting too complicated, because the more complicated it gets, the more likely you are to mess it up. Sometimes just one or two instruments playing together is perfect for a song, and you don't need an entire symphony orchestra.

Then he said something which fascinated me. He said, 'Control and restrictions lead to creativity and expansion.' He says:

From time to time I come across a student who resists the restrictions of this book - especially the General Rules (to which not all of the given examples conform, it should be noted). Such resistance is understandable and you may be feeling it. But let me emphasize the reasons behind these restrictions.

Some restrictions give focus, focus on the procedures at hand - they keep you from having so many choices that you are unable to get in touch with your feelings and ideas. An exercise that asks you to use such-and-such a rhythm and only four given tones is an example of this type of restriction.

Other restrictions are designed to keep you out of trouble. The rule requiring basic note values, for example, helps you to achieve rhythmic balance, to be able to write a melody that retains its momentum, that keeps going, that does not sag. "Forbidden" rhythms, like a measure of dotted 16th and 32nd notes followed by two whole notes, invite trouble for the developing composer. I want you to be trouble-free when you work with this book. I want you to be challenged, to feel pleasure and to achieve excellence.

Finally, these restrictions are a way of not having to pay attention to anything except what is deep inside of you - follow the rules and write the music.

Isn't he wonderful? I love his way of writing. I love this author so much. This is one of my all time favorite books. It just occurred to me that I don't know which one of the three authors is responsible for that particular quote - I'm not sure what the other two authors did, but it was my understanding that the book was mainly William Russo. I wonder, now, who wrote what.

Unfortunately, during the time when I was writing music, I was also using St. John's Wort and being severely attacked. 'They' would force me to have disgusting nightmares with music playing in them, when I had been writing music that day, but the music was often horrible and disgusting, songs about - don't laugh - songs about shit, and toilets, and things like that. I would hear those in my nightmares while watching disgusting images happen. They also would force my own song to play over and over in my head so that I was unable to write any more on it, because I could only hear the previous few notes playing over and over in my mind. This was way beyond the usual level of feeling like the song is still in your mind. I would literally hear the notes in my mind in such a disruptive way that they prevented me from doing anything else.

RDL travels into the mountains. I wonder if they go far enough to get away from cell phone towers and radio stations. I know that satellites cover the entire area of the globe, though, but I don't know if satellites are responsible for my phenomena, or something on the ground, and I want to someday test what happens when I go to an area that doesn't have any ground-based radio frequencies. I'd also like to visit Green Bank, West Virginia, where they have a radio quiet zone around the satellite dish. RDL said that when he goes into the mountains, everything is quiet and there is no background noise, and the low-level background anxiety subsides. I believe that this low-level background anxiety is caused by electromagnetic pollution, by being immersed in radio waves from cell phones and other sources.

I wanted to write music, for years and years and years. I decided that that was the particular way that I wanted to express my soul. I don't express it in words. It's wordless music. I still want to do that. I need to do it, because nobody else is doing it for me. I haven't found any music that feels the exact way that I want it to feel. I know what it is that I want. Nobody else can do it.