Anti+-Mind

hey guys, still working and trying to pump stuff out.  I’ve got about four songs I’m working on at once, when I get the time between work and working on violins.   This album’s going to try and incorporate several different genres, if I can manage it.  This one is more a lyrical rap style, written from the perspective of the Chief of Sameling Research, a character who has a bitter role in the story, as he is not responding well to the loss of his children in the Clysm, where all young separated from old in pursuit of Anti+-Mind.  I’m going to start putting more and more of the story up here as I go on…I had hoped to do so sequentially, but my muse just isn’t working that way.  It prefers to bounce around the storyline and then fill in the holes, lol.  Anywho, I present this to you as the first single my brother and I created, even before the Prentice track (he sings the backup vocals).

 

Published in: on June 1, 2011 at 1:39 pm  Comments (1)  

Track 1: Prentice, the Prelude

Here it is, guys – Wes and I have talked, and we’ve decided that this shall be our first track for the album, which we have decided shall be our attempt at a new genre: Operatic Fusion. It is entitled “Prentice, the Prelude.”

I am tremendously proud of how this has turned out, so please enjoy the fruits of our efforts, and don’t hesitate to share with your friends if it moves you. Lyrics are in the description so that you may miss nothing in the process of storytelling. Thank you for listening!

Published in: on May 11, 2011 at 11:52 pm  Comments (4)  

Return and Refocus

Hello all,

It’s been quite some time since I posted here, but I’ve been refining my interests and trying to get some equipment together to provide what I’ve been yearning to for a long time: music.  I put some videos up a long time ago, but it was low quality and I had no real idea how to fix that.  I am learning now.  About a month ago, I resolved to start recording, even though all I had was a junky headset mic…one month later, I have done some research, procured a Samson GoMic and a pop filter, and am now slowly but surely collecting a bank of knowledge on recording and production.  I am happy to say that what is growing has exceeded my expections – I started slow at first, but am adding a level of professionality that gives me great self-worth.  In coming posts, I will outline some of the details of this project, which will be a thematic album…I’m quite excited about it.  For now, I will leave you with this tidbit to start.  Feel free to browse my youtube and leave feedback for me, and I hope this will be as enjoyable for you as it will be for me.

Published in: on May 10, 2011 at 2:17 am  Leave a Comment  

An Interesting Discourse

Hello there,

I haven’t been around in quite some time, being busy with work and more recent novel writing, but I have gotten into a game over the last few months called “Hyperiums,” and some very interesting communication has resulted from the experience.  I figured it would be a good exercise in both cataloging and sharing to place it here for you guys to see.  I may also put up more of my book soon, as I’m a good bit of the way through Chapter 6 now.

In this conversation a few definitions are necessary:

Hyps Prot.: Hyperiums Protectorate; a form of government which offers complete military protection but increased administrative and building costs. Ships also may not be built on a Protectorate planet. Once a planet has left Hyperiums Protectorate status, it may never be switched back.

FTO: Friendly Take-Over; when a player withdraws all or most of his or her military units from a planet and allows another player to take control of the planet without resistance.

NAP: Non-Aggression Pact; an agreement between alliances to abstain from military conflict with each other.

Demo: Democratic; the mode of government wherein population and civilisation level grows the fastest, but ground armies and ships are built the most slowly.

Auth: Authoritarian; the mode of government which is a cross between the Dictatorial and Democratic government types. This government type is rarely used by players save during special wartime circumstances where a Dictatorial government is not preferred.

Note: In a Dictatorial government, financial assets may be “preempted,” or ceased, at any time.  This is one of the main functions assigned to Dict. and excluded from the other three gov. types.

If others become apparently necessary, I’ll put them in later.

Alimus is a player who has requested FTO for a Hyps. Prot. planet inhabited by another player in my alliance.  This player is away for the moment, so I told him that I would check with my High Council on the matter and get back to him.  He sends me this in reply:

Message from Cmdr. AlimusRe: FTO
Yeah np mate, ive just been clearing some tags from our core and like you say i normally wouldnt bother with hyps prot planets if theyre not tagged as there isnt a great deal that can be done about it.

Having said that it doesnt exactly reflect well on our MP that hes public tagged them, so i figured id ask for an FTO, as i believe there is no reference to an exemption for hyps prot within the MP terms.

Cheers for getting back to me anyway, and ill look forward to hearing from you.

Alimus

My response to him is as follows:

Re: FTO
No worries. I’ll untag it publicly for you, in the spirit of our NAP, but I’m afraid the exemption for Hyps. Prot. is simply by virtue that it is Hyps. Prot.

I very much appreciate your willingness to communicate, however, and look forward to future dealings with you.

~ Judgend

The next day he sends me this:

Message from Cmdr. AlimusRe: FTO
I’ll accede that as they are hyps prot they cant be taken by force, but it is in breach of the NAP for them not to be FTOd

“All planets in each others territories must be FTO’d”

There is no mention of an exemption, and as such i wouldnt expect an exemption to be made.

I understand what you’re saying about prots and the general assumption that you can keep them wherever they are. However that assumption also requires that the planet owner is not signed up to a NAP or MP which would preclude them from being in the area. Normally this would be done by keeping your planet untagged and your forces in camo.

Like i said i can appreciate your standpoint, and im not going to press the issue, but i would like to point out that by keeping the planets you will technically be breaching the terms of the NAP.

Alimus

After some thought, I replied:

I full well understand what you’re saying, and I won’t move to defend said planet. I also understand what you’re trying to do, and call it apples and oranges.

I’ve honored and worked through this NAP several times in the past with disputes and misunderstandings between multiple members of our alliances. However, I’m not working under a general assumption based on extraneous rules imposed by players. I’m pointing out that, regardless of our military position, the game will not let you have that planet at such a low cost as words would dictate.

FTO is the withdrawal of military forces and resistance to attack. Even if I withdrew all forces from his planet, in agreement with the NAP, you still couldn’t take it. The NAP says nothing about switching govs, and neither does the game’s definition of FTO.

I point this out not in an attempt to rile your sensibilities, but to assert that he can still adhere to the NAP and FTO without there being any difference in the situation. I complied with your assessment that there should not be a publicly tagged planet in that area, and am aware of the extents of definition under which I toil to protect my allies.

So, once again, take care, and thank you for your communication!

~ Judgend

The conversation continues:

Message from Cmdr. AlimusRe: FTO
Before I begin, please understand that I’m not trying to be difficult, nor am I looking to have the planets handed over. I’m happy with the resolution you’ve proposed, and I’m not looking to cause any friction between our alliances.

Having said that, given the depth and verbosity of your reply I couldn’t help but point out the flaw in your argument.

Although there may be no direct mention of switching gov in the terms of the NAP or the glossary definition of FTO; simply keeping a planet in Hyps Prot is in itself a form of resistance, this is the only purpose that this government type has in the game.

Hyps Prot.: Hyperiums Protectorate; a form of government which offers complete military protection but increased administrative and building costs.

It is akin to agreeing to withdraw your military units only to engage a third party to defend the planet on your behalf. It is not the game that will not let me have the planet, but the player who holds control over that specific game mechanism.

As such I feel that this is arguably a breach of the terms of the NAP. As by keeping the planet in Hyps Prot you are offering a deliberate military resistance to the FTO of that planet.

Let me know what you think,

-Alimus

And I do:

No worries at all. Your command of ideas and the language used to communicate them demonstrated to me that this was not a war, but a debate, and I would have been disappointed if you had not lived up to that expectation.

My response is directly two-fold; first, I would agree with your assessment of third party defense if both parties were, in fact, bound by your NAP. Second, the function of government, both in this game and in real life, is strictly that: to govern.

If a planet were FTO’d simply to be defended by an unknown or unrelated force, that would not be a breach of the NAP. It does not bind that force to any prior agreement. You have admitted that if you didn’t know it was one of our alliance’s planets, you wouldn’t have attempted to take it at all. This is because you assume that our NAP affords you some sway over the barrier to your conquest: Hyps. Prot, a government, the benefits of which are entirely overseen by the game, a third party not in deference to your contract.

FTO insists on military compliance, and nothing more. That is why it is often common practice in FTO to switch governments so that the original party may retain its investments for a limited time while finding ways to recoup the loss. The plaintiff’s demands lay strictly upon the defendant’s armies, and so this move is not a violation of the NAP.

In light of these conclusions, I feel it obvious to agree that it’s arguably a breach of terms, but anything’s arguable. The crux of the issue lies in whether or not the argument is good enough. The conversation is fantastic; the argument, however, falls short.

I do appreciate your compliment on my depth and verbosity. Many players consider it an assault to be offered so many words. I am one of the few (as far as I have encountered) who actually plays this game for the rare, fulfilling conversation.

~ Judgend (Jon)

His last reply to me was:

Message from Cmdr. AlimusRe: FTO
I understand your standpoint, however it is based on several assumptions regarding the independence of the Protectorate armies and the fact that they are not bound by the NAP, and also that the function of the government is unrelated to the military defence of a planet.

You state that if a planet were to be defended by an unrelated or unknown force it would not be a breach of the NAP; the Hyps Prot armies however are neither unknown nor unrelated.

In fact they are exactly the opposite, given that the player in question has direct and total control over those armies by choosing to be in the Hyps Prot government, and knows absolutley that by keeping the planet in Hyps Prot should it be attacked the armies will arrive.

The benefits of this system are not entirely overseen by the game as you propose either; as it is up to the player to choose whether or not they will utilise this defensive option. And as such the Hyps Prot armies are not independent forces who aren’t bound by the NAP.

Furthermore, even if they were an independent force not bound by the NAP themselves, engaging their services to undertake military action on your behalf in your NAP partners core would be a breach of the NAP in any case.

Your second supposition regarding the function of government being to govern both in the game and in real life being strictly to govern, is factually incorrect. The function of government in the game is not in fact to govern; this is why it is called government type, as its purpose is simply to allow access to a range of options to the player which reflects that government type. The actual governing of a planet is left solely to the player.

And while the use of goverment types to protect financial assests on a planet may not be a breach of the NAP, the use of a government type to provide a military defence to a planet is, as it is actively and deliberately resisting the FTO of that planet.

The reason I would not have requested an FTO had the planet not been tagged, was because in that instance, had it not been possible to prove the planets owner; plausible deniability could have been maintained, and while the NAP would still have been breached, there would be no evidence to prove it had been and as such no recourse for me to follow.

I am pleased you have taken my comments in the way they were intended, and I hope that these, too, find you well.

-Alimus (Aled)

and my statements today are:

Re: FTO
Greetings again :)

The benefits of Hyps. Prot, a one-time-only government system, are in fact completely overseen by the game. Letter of the law dictates that your alliance and my alliance are the only members responsible for their military actions according to the NAP. If the choice to change a government is not a military action, thus not in violation in the aforementioned circumstances, then it is not here, either. Finally, as you have pointed out, that responsibility has been built contingent upon culpability, which is the weakest of foundations.

Though you have posited that resistance is the only reason to keep a planet Hyps. Prot, the government itself takes all military control and most economical benefits away from a player. In reality, remaining a Hyps. Prot. is the surest sign of deference to a treaty seeking the void of aggression, as you cannot produce any military force and you cannot infiltrate to any truly advantageous extent.

Only the military actions of our two alliances are prescribed by our pact. Hyps. Prot. planets cannot be reproduced by military force, much less any other means. The origins of such a planet are entirely up to the game, as well. As such, its existence is almost entirely out of the player’s hands. Under these circumstances (controlling a quarter of a planet in a locale not of your own choosing), true ownership is up for a completely different, and equally lengthy, debate!

In fact, the only choice that the player inhabiting a Hyps. Prot. planet does have in militarily influencing others is to switch to a different government and begin producing ships with which attack is a possibility. In my mind, that is the true act of aggression, but I would have written the treaty differently. Under current terms, an offensive act such as denying the plaintiff of an FTO economic access by switching to Demo. or Auth. is not deemed aggressive because it does not technically constitute direct military action. Under the same terms, you cannot presume that the decision not to switch a government is deemed aggressive, especially when that decision severely governs your ability to be rapacious.

The truth is that Hyps. Prot. most of all governs a player, and you have no such military treaties with the “Hyperiums Empire.” This NAP, like all other NAP’s I’ve read about, was based upon strict letter of the law, not spirit of the law. In the former paradigm, there are numerous loopholes present especially within such a short and scarcely discussed agreement as have we. Culpability should not even be a factor in the decision of actions, and it wouldn’t be nearly so present if the people discussing this NAP had taken the time to instill within it a spirit of the law mentality.

Who makes pacts in order to take advantage of those with whom they enter into agreement? Not I, and if I had my way further, there would be a more friendly atmosphere involved in this NAP business, rather than a contest of division for the purpose of seeing who can get away with what.

~

Sorry if this is too long to be interesting.  I thought about making it several posts, but decided that this would be the same basic result, and that I’m far too impatient and lazy to wait in catching you up to where I am in the conversation  XD

The “Good” Doctor

Published in: on September 16, 2010 at 12:52 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , ,

Repetition (Song Adaptation – First Try)

Here it is, guys – a bit rough, I understand.  It has some noise from the breeze blowing about the window and whatnot, but I’m pretty happy with it, at the moment.  I may try to record a better quality version when I get a bit better handle on this whole sound manipulation gig, but this will do for now.  I hope you enjoy it :D

Repetition is…
~
The dismemberment of the mind
And the atrophy of the soul.
~
“I will remember to endeavor to never forget
To follow tradition without thought, without question…
~
…without reflection of inclination or reason…”
You’ll write this 100 times, or it’s treason.
You’ll live this 200 times before your season
~
—My father’s weary eyes melt inward.
All hail the death of the majority’s hero!
Surely he knew exactly
what his father’s fathers had done—
~
“…And I won’t ask whether I’m out of line.”
As long as you cage someone else, you’ll be fine.
~
So light the lies of compromise,
then watch them all blow out like flies,
one by one, you setting sons.
~
But don’t forget that still inside
you’re kissing all sweet hells in life,
you’re full of rage, and yet so young.

Lending An Ear

Hey there, all.  I hope today finds you well…it wasn’t a good day for me, but I’m turning it into fuel for a new fire.

I was thinking to myself that I enjoy music very much, and words even more, but I never had much luck with writing songs.  I wrote a few when I was younger, but they were very specifically drama oriented and I was never proud of them.  However, I love to noodle, so much so that I already have several sets worth of purely instrumental music.  This has been a very frustrating situation for several years, now.  I have, at least to some limited extent, resolved it today!

I am devoting genuine effort to committing my poetry into song in order to drum up inspiration, and I did the first one today.  Surprisingly, it left me pretty satisfied – it is, of course, not the best song ever, and part of that is its relative brevity.  On the other hand, I can get goosebumps from it, which is obviously a very sophisticated and professional litmus test for quality.  XD

I want to show you guys how it goes, but I need to find a proper recording program.  If anyone as ideas about a simple such program which is easy to obtain, let me know.  Otherwise, I’ll have to try and search one out right quick for you.

Published in: on April 28, 2010 at 9:07 pm  Comments (7)  
Tags: , , , , ,

I shall have to make a new one….

Sorry for this, but I’ve happened upon a bit of draught, an elixir if you will.  I’m going to warn you now that this is me in a somewhat vitriolic state, so I will get a mite hateful, and it should come as a surprise because I’m not generally this way.  As the “good” doctor, however – I, too, have a layer of razor beneath my flesh.

I just got the spring issue of the Missouri Review, which includes the poetry of the woman whose poetry was deemed better than mine…and I’m going to be purely selfish about it, in this place.  The “Poet Laureate of Albany, California?”  Is that a laudable title?  That is as if I were to refer to myself as the “Poet Laureate of California, Missouri,” right?  It’s insulting, to me, that titles are the medium of credibility where words are concerned.  If I were ever a poet of any fame to be truly outdone by one with no such names, I would honestly be proud of the state of poetry.

The titles bear proper witness, though, for I cannot fathom how real worth can be found within these words: each poem being simply a set of descriptions with no message, no drive, no edge, and the incessant use of “&” in place of “and” in every poem.  EVERY POEM!  What sort of gimmick is this that I might suffer such a useless gesture?  If you’re going to do something out of the ordinary, for God’s sake, don’t make it a damn calling card.  Use it as you would a weapon – carefully and sparingly.  An excess of Salt kills the body; needless repetition, the mind.

And what is this petulant ignorance of form or rhyme?  I heard so many times in college that if I wanted to use rhyme in poetry, I should go write for Hallmark cards…what is the basis for this indemnification against such a staple bastion of poetry?  It can add so many dimensions that the abuse of its simplicity is negligible.  After all, what makes calling simple exposition poetry any better than the sense of childishness that stems from the overuse of rhyme?  This move seems like the apex of ignorance under the facade of academia…as if I proposed that every poet no longer has a mouth in order to be an acceptable poet, and any poet who speaks is a bastard heretic.

I suppose I seethe the strongest because I feel nothing from these words.  They’re meant to be words to a lover, or between lovers, or whatever ardent rote you may, but they are spoken from the pedestal of a person who is above the love of words, beyond form, and full of other instead of self.  I never used to have confidence about my writing, but I know that it IS powerful and self-contained – it contains my self, blatantly obvious to most I’ve shown it to, and I’m proud of it as I would be my children.

Apparently, however, this world contains no pride but flat.  One day, I’ll make a note to bubble past it, and if this world can’t contain me…

I shall have to make a new one.

So Seuss Me

In my last semester of college, I turned in a poem for workshop that I really loved, especially for its neat rhyming mechanics and its closeness to my developing emotional condition.  In this particular workshop, we got to share several copies of our poems and collect them back with notes from the other students for the improvement of our art.  Now, for different reasons, the poetry veterans in my college didn’t seem to look very favorably upon rhyme as a method, supposedly because it’s childish to implement and distracts from any real art in the poem (whatever).  My heart sunk when it saw a message that had been curtly scribbled in the corner of one of my copies:

This reminds me of a depressed Dr. Seuss,

staring out the window in a dark room,

as if he were looking at his tomb.

It made me angry, because she decided to take only the bad from the poem and ignore the good, thus distorting the message in a way that I can only assume was sole method of her relation to it.  I fumed for the rest of the afternoon, sitting in the back of my car and trying to figure out why it was so easy for her to cut into another person’s words like that…until I realized that she had unwittingly complemented me.  Out of these musings came the following poem, which I read aloud after recounting this very story in front of the English department at the open recital that night:

So Seuss Me

Pity like pennies

For the author of meaningless cynicisms

Meant to twist and mar progress

In justipetrification of insecurity.

~

Misunderstate me, if you will,

But I am that which sustains your apatherapy;

Pretend you don’t care for me, then scream at the top of your fingertips

At the implicomplications of my existence.

~

I sacrifice my children to you in the Bradstreet tradisedition,

But you lack the inhibition to become more than sepia

Fantasies of a sinister Dr. Seuss,

Embodying the blissful bitterness you feel

In failing to aquirequire the simplicity

Of contentment that I finally achieve.

~

Am I to grieve at the relation to a beautiful mind?

I’d sooner enter twelve dark rooms to attain his happiness

Than delve through your aversion in only one such duress.

~

If, then, flattery could be the sincerest form of imitation,

I can only be pleased with the succeeding implication.

Published in: on April 19, 2010 at 9:03 pm  Comments (7)  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Prodigal Doctor

Hello all – the show’s finally done and I’ve taken this week to get back in the swing of things and settle my writing mind into full steam.  I’ve started writing my book again, and I’ve got a couple new poem ideas I’m playing with, so keep an eye out in the next day or so.  Thanks for still stopping by to check on me; I’ll get to commenting again, soon :)

Published in: on April 16, 2010 at 3:18 pm  Comments (7)  

JFK was a Jew.

INSIDE JOKE by Jon and Wesley Freeland

Sketch #15: JFK was a Jew.

Wes Freeland: I think I may have found the weirdest, most ambigious rule in speech and debate: All outside sources must be cited within the speech. This refers to direct quotations, theories, concepts and general ideas.

Wes Freeland: So…like….everything? Because I’m pretty sure NOBODY in this league is going to be the first person to trumpet their idea…

Jon Freeland: So, apparently, not ALL outside sources. ONLY direct quotations, theories, concepts, and general ideas. Indirect quotations, laws, models, and specific ideas are all valid black market currency.

Wes Freeland: Aha! Loop-hole!

Wes Freeland: Take that, snobs! Your bloody rules can’t touch us when the Freeland Family interprets them!

Jon Freeland: Hell yeah!

Jon Freeland: Now, all we need are specific examples of such calamities.

Wes Freeland: Godwin’s law, and the specific idea that Hitler was a d-bag? Do those work? Can I make a speech about that?

Jon Freeland: I challenge you to tie that in with your JFK case.

Wes Freeland: “Hitler Killed JFK: Discuss.”

Jon Freeland: Then, you’re saying that Johnson was Hitler.

Wes Freeland: Wait…I have a quote from Jack Ruby saying that Lyndon B. Johnson was a Nazi of the worst order! Hitler was the worst Nazi…LYNDON B. JOHNSON IS HITLER! OMG!

Jon Freeland: HAHAHAHA, YES!

Jon Freeland: DO

Jon Freeland: IT

Jon Freeland: !

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.