November, 2008

Noel Huntley, Ph.D.

Reactions to this expose will be mixed---it will not exactly be welcomed by many. But there has been so much in the media recently on bad or obscene language with no clarification as to its inference. Science has potentially unlimited power to solve all mysteries but it is not remotely being fully utilised. It may come as a surprise, even a shock to learn that so-called bad language is not only about offending people, and it is not a question of 'cultural conservatism', or brushing it aside as a modern trend, but can be shown to be detrimental to the behavioural environment within society. On this basis, prospects for our civilisation look pretty bleak when we observe that bad language has escalated over the past fifty years beyond what could have been predicted, and is a certain indication of the degradation of a civilisation---it is even being glamourised on television. This all may seem trivial to the habitual swearer but the subject is a major issue of negative behaviour and is an index to other deterioration within society.

We find that the words in question are mainly ones describing biological functions or products. The most offensive and common swear word is the 'F' word. It is rapidly becoming a verbal plague, particularly amongst the young, and yet little is done about it. There appears to be a complete absence of relevant knowledge. A typical instance: the author, walking into town recently could overhear two youths following close behind at an equal pace, expelling 'F' words ad-lib. Amazingly, on returning half-an-hour later, the identical situation repeated, with the same two youths immediately behind (and science thinks there are no synchronicities---meaningful coincidences!).

Such words have the purpose of expressing hostility, insult, malicious intent, etc. All thought is energy (has been proved) and this is associated with the words. In order to show the reader that this negativity is real and not an insubstantial personal aversion, we can apply non-experimental physics. One of the great benefits of science is that it has the potential to explain all quantitative-type phenomena (not, of course, the experiential and subjective aspects of art, music, etc., which science endeavours to reduce to the quantitative level). The swear word can be quantitatively analysed. Application of science without dependence on the limitations of scientific methodology (and therefore referred to as non-experimental) has the ability to bring truth to all such problems in a civilisation---such as reconciling science and religion, explaining karma (or 'punishment from God'), etc. So what is holding it back?

It is in fact the unofficial and unspoken law that the experimental method is the only acceptable system of determining truth---even going further and subtly implying that anything that can't be proved by science, or hasn't yet been proved, is not worthy of consideration. And yet quantum physics about 60 years ago revealed that there were drastic experimental limitations. After serious debates on this the information apparently was swept under the rug (see The Limitations of Scientific Objectivity and The New Education: Part XI).

The point we are making here is that non-experimental scientific knowledge will be, and will have to be, introduced, forming and cultivating a viable procedure/method to be used if real progress is to continue. Everything that we can talk about or conceive of manifests energy patterns (frequencies/waves). This actually makes physics the basic science and further that the basic subject within physics is: how energy works. The extent to which we understand how energy works we could solve virtually all problems on a planet and settle all arguments---if not restricted by the limitations of scientific methodology. There are other ways of arriving at truths.

Now what makes these words offensive? It is not just the individual who is being oversensitive. And why are certain words chosen to be used in a negative way? Language undergoes continuous change; not always for the better. In this context, certain individuals discovered that to impact a more negative effect on a target (a person or incident) one could use words of biological functions and products. However, the official words are replaced by degenerate ones in order to accommodate the new distorted meaning, which then invalidates the official word and prevents the true meaning taking precedence. Only meanings are chosen that contain associated suppression/repression, dislike, disgust, taboo elements, etc. any of which have at some time invoked negative or repressed reactions (even dislike involves some withdrawal/repression from what is disliked). This is emotional charge associated with the memory of the experiences. The 'F' word clearly gives us a word charged with energy. Thought is energy and intention projects energy. The 'F' word fundamentally relates to the creation of life but its verbalisation is used for exactly the opposite: destructive purposes (this is in addition to the biological function effect), or simply the creation of an effect, ridiculing its true meaning, such as in entertainment. Combined with its taboo associations it gives scope for more intensity, though more importantly it is thus chosen to express greater negative intention, and therefore the word itself can build up a thought-form of antisocial and distorted energies, in which the waveforms are chaotic, not in harmonious alignment with universal energies, and thus contributes a damaging and disharmonious effect on whatever it impinges on, as these vibrations radiate out.

As stated above, the main function of swear words is to convey either hostility, insult, malicious intent, dislike/hatred, and, in general, negative emphasis, or merely to create an effect using these distorted energies. But a proper evolution is in the direction of increased sanity, health and peace, responsibility, which involves integrated and harmonic energies. Compare a beautiful piece of music, with all its parts harmonically interrelated into a whole, with cacophonous sound. Which is the most intelligent?

Before outlining a simple scientific analysis, let's take a relatively mild sample of bad language, say, 'bullshit'. The first question is, why is this word being used (in the typically hostile manner)? Simply because of what it actually represents---something which one steps in, in a field (or whatever), creating a reaction of discomfort, dislike, disgust (a variable negative emotional state, depending on the individual). This reaction creates emotional charge (electrical) in the mind (has been proved) and is stored with the memory (in an out-of-phase condition). A person can now choose this word, which is linked with the negative emotional experience, to impact a greater effect by using the negative emotional charge represented by the particular word---but unaware of this process, which is totally unrelated to actually stepping in bullshit. In this case, it might be to, say, condemn something as nonsense. The word now has negative energy to release and radiate out or impinge on another mind. Whereas the word 'nonsense', to express the same thing, is neutral---it doesn't contain charge; it is merely a word expressing precisely its given meaning. The word 'bullshit' has no intelligent use in this context except to impinge emotionally into the event the disharmonious energies.

When such words are used the individual does not in fact recognise at that moment what the words actually mean. If the individual's consciousness focussed in on this they would probably chuckle and feel silly. An example: the author, working for a company, was in the gents at the washbowls. A cubicle occupant, clearly admonishing himself for creating some minor inconvenience, such as dropping something, and clearly a habitual swearer, cried out, 'Oh, shi* . . .!' but being evidently quite sharp-minded he curtailed the word abruptly, realising before he fully articulated the expletive how ridiculous it must sound to anyone else in the gents area. Meaning what else would he expect to find in a toilet. People need to increase their awareness of what these words actually mean and how ridiculous their use is, not to mention being aware of what they are doing, degrading qualitative energies.

Let us now apply, in simple terms, non-experimental physics to the bad-language problem, based on quantum physics, the most advanced science on the planet. Quantum physics sees everything in terms of wave packets, whether particles, objects, or even words. For simplicity, picture a bunch of sine waves (oscillating waves)---they add together to form a resultant modulated wave. A normal word will have a wave packet in which the waves will be in reasonable mathematical alignment (harmony). Quantum physics sees everything as minute energies (particles/waves) blinking on and off (we only see the 'on' state) and that all particles/energies are interconnected throughout the universe. Objects in empty space is an illusion but correctly perceived at our level of perception. (A scientist might question that it can only be the sound of the word, which could carry the negative vibration, but in fact fringe areas of scientific knowledge are revealing that scalar-electromagnetics underlie sound.)

The average word will have the waves in mathematical alignment, which means the resultant is a smooth modulated (larger) wave. Now, negative emotional states are projected through swear words (that's the purpose of them). This puts the waves of the word with the emotional charge out of alignment, creating a disharmonious spiky resultant wave (this could be shown on an advanced oscilloscope). Quantum physics tells us that all these wave packets radiate out to the universe! Hence, these degenerate words---as long as they are reinforced---make a contribution to the decline of the civilisation as they impinge on all phenomena.

Those who object to cleaning up our language and communication are missing the whole point. The path to higher intelligence and sanity is a harmonic evolution governed by the nature of the energies of consciousness and the proper functioning of our genetics. We desperately need some quality control: a campaign to foster more qualitative states---in which the parts are in special relationship, such as resonance---whether particles, energies or people. A course for students of all ages is needed to understand the relationship between qualitative and quantitative, with physics to back it up. Note that present experimental physics is only quantitative, but non-experimental physics could be qualitative (dealing with finer energies---higher frequencies---and greater wholeness).

There is a failure to recognise what factors of existence promote a proper survival of the human species, and vice versa what devolves the species. If there is no subjective understanding of this (and subjective understanding would be sufficient), non-experimental physics has the capability to enlighten the species by the application of how energy works.