Science, as we know it, is based on a few rules.  First, there must be a point that is trying to be proved (eg proving the existence of the atom).  Second, and proof must be repeatable by others under similar conditions.  Third, there must be standard components which everyone agrees on.

In the case of physical science, we have a number of ways of looking at the world.  We can penetrate to a number of ‘levels’ into the matter which surrounds us.  For example, first of all, we have the object under concern, be it a tree, a rock, a table, whatever.  The next level down is where we see that the object is made up of smaller units.  In science, we call these molecules.  The molecules join together and their sum total makes the object in question.

If we penetrate deeper still, we see that those molecules are made up of even smaller ‘bits’.  These smaller bits we call ‘atoms’ and they too join together in different ways to make different molecules.  Deeper still, we have the subatomic particles, from electrons and protons, to muons etc.

From experience, each deeper penetration into the structure of the world around us reveals much more to us about that world.  Each new discovery yields new abilities to work with and manipulate the substance of the world around us.  This of course, should be used for the greater good of all, but sadly, some of these abilities and skills are used to deceive and entrap.

So, in science, the basic units everyone agrees on are the elements in the periodic table.  It is safe to say that each element is unique, and has unique makeup and quality.  When these elements join together (and not all join together), they make up new, larger objects (molecules) and these have new behaviours and qualities different to that of the elements which make it up.

As the molecules join, they form larger objects still who also have different behaviours and qualities than either the molecules or the atoms.

The Science of Sound is approached in exactly the same way. We are like the early scientists who first realised they could penetrate a level deeper into matter.  Just as they were looking at the objects in the world as ‘the full object’, not seeing the smaller components. So do we look at words just on the surface, seeing only ‘the full object’ and not realising that by understanding its components we can change the world in the same way as the discoveries of physical science have changed the world.

So – how is this science structured? Well, the components, as you may have guessed, are the various characters in all the human alphabets.  You could consider their sum total to be ‘the periodic table of human sound’.  Just like elements in physical science, some can bond with each other, others can’t.

The ‘full object’ view is the completed word itself.

The next level of depth is equivalent to the ‘molecular’ view of science and are the syllables of the word.  These are referred to elsewhere on the site as ’syllabic molecules’ just to encourage us to keep the scientific correlation.

The next level, which would be the equivalent ‘atomic’ level, is the level where we look at the characters themselves.

Finally, as we get to the sub-atomic level, we enter the realms of the hugely abstract and theoretical, and it relates to the meaning of the formation of the characters themselves.

As with science, each component has unqiue behaviour and unique attributes. A word itself has a meaning and a particular ‘quality’ to it.  When we break it into syllables, each of these have their own independent and different quality and behaviour as compared to the completed word.  This is no different to physical science – molecules have independent and different quality and behaviour compared to the completed object they make up.  The same principle applies to the atomic level of looking at words, and we see that each letter, or character, is indeed unique and different compared to the syllabic molecule it was a part of.

Since this is a very young ’science’ all the behaviours and rules have not been established yet.  Our attention should first be to work with understanding syllabic molecules before making proper effort at the smaller components, comparing it with physical science again, the early scientists did not peer at the world with an electron microscope until they had mastered the normal one!

Lets use an example that has been bandied around quite commonly in the last 15 or so years:

responsibility
‘completed word’ – first level approach, equivalent of ‘naked eye’ in science

response: ability
‘molecular view’ – second level approach, equivalent of a microscope (note: the replacement of the ‘a’ is a phonetically valid replacement and is akin to when molecules ‘drop off’ one or more element to allow it to ‘bond’ with another molecule)

r.e.s.p.o.n.s.i.b.i.l.i.t.y.
‘atomic view’ – third level approach, looking at each component individually equivalent of an electron microscope.  This level is too abstract for most to handle even in the first few years of study of this science – it requires some intuitive breakthroughs and personal experiences: just like you wouldn’t expect to understand atomic science when you hadn’t studied molecules or basic physics.

The subatomic equivalent view cannot be written, for as soon as any character is written, it is no longer at ’subatomic’ level. It begins when you being to write the letter, and it ends when the letter is finished. This is the most abstract level of all, but just as in subatomic science, it is perhaps the most powerful and most revealing.

So, the last two levels are beyond the scope of this basic introduction, but lets look at the first two to get an idea of what can be gained from this ’science:’

Consider your understanding of the word ‘responsibility’ – what does it mean to you?  Are there implications of accountability? What about burden or chore? Can someone give you responsibility for something?

I don’t know about you, but my answer to all of the above is ‘yes.’  We give responsibility away, and take it, every day – we elect officials, we loan to friends and accept loans, we can often feel the burden at work of a given responsibility.

Now lets look at the ’syllabic molecule’ view to see what is revealed:

Response Ability – this is clearly ones ability to respond.  Now, lets look at the above questions again:  There are still connotations of accountability, but they are greatly muted, but there is no implication of a chore or burden, and, most significantly of all: Response Ability cannot be given or conferred, or even taken – it may only be demonstrated.

This is a vital point – Ability to Respond is only realised through demonstration/example. Now consider our elected officials and representatives – we have given them ‘responsibility,’ but what is their ‘ability to respond?’

If we used ‘ability to respond’ as a measure of role allocation we would end up with COMPLETELY different people doing tasks and performing functions than we do today when we give and take ‘responsibility’ as a matter of course.  This subtle yet crucial difference completely changes our understanding of the idea that is ‘responsibility.’  Consider that if we had used this level of understanding, our entire global landscape would be different because we would NOT have elected those we have for roles of authority, and how far into the past would that have applied?  This small and seemingly insignificant shift has a profound and far reaching impact and implication.

This is no different to the revelations gained by science when it first started examining molecules and realised a lot of our conclusions about objects in the world were flawed.  We are now entering a phase of realising that a lot of our conclusions about words, meanings and their significance are flawed – and with more consequence than we realise.

Consider also that we only looked a the first two levels – we can see that each of these are the same characters, but by looking at them at the different levels, we can see that there additional meaning that can be gleaned compared to ‘the average’.  Findings like this, and there are literally hundreds, many with unbelievably profound revelations to offer, are the reason for this science being worth pursuing.

What depth, do you think, could be revealed if we could penetrate to the very heart of sound and language, unpicking our meanings to the very source energy that gives rise to our ability to conceptualise, convey and communicate?