The two barriers against which the life process inevitably had to fight from the beginning led to conflicting values making their mark on evolution. Many of our main problems have their roots there and date from that time.

From my descriptions so far it may seem as if each energon had one overall value, representing its competitiveness and as if we were seeking to measure it. This is because I did not want to further complicate the description, already complex enough, from the start. The overlaps of the single levels of values are in fact much more complicated. Each energon has not only one competitive value but at least three, the human body of acquisition even have more.

Let’s take a closer look at the two barriers.

Figure 31 is a diagram of the first barrier. The energons A and B – as is to be expected – are equally capable of absorbing energy and differ basically in one characteristic only. Energon B has the ability to reproduce itself due to the additional effective unit x, whereas energon A does not have this ability.

The two energons meet with a functional obstacle (barrier W) which makes it impossible for them to survive as individuals. Barrier W may stand for unfavourable environmental conditions such as disadvantageous conditions for acquisition or natural forces. Or it may be an obstacle occurring in the interior of the energon, e.g. the limited duration of life due to the process of "ageing". A "barrier" thus does not necessarily need to be a visible, tangible obstacle but it may be a factor which at a given point in space or time makes an on average active energy balance impossible.

In this case undoubtedly energon B has the advantage, though not as individual – which dies too – but as "species". Since the energon produces offspring (in the figure below only two but it may produce as many as it likes) the young have the chance of passing this barrier. Should unfavourable living conditions be the hindrance, then the offspring may lead a better life at a different place. If it is the process of ageing, it can be overcome because the offspring are also capable of reproducing. This ability is thus an advantage for the development of life which is of use to the species but not to the individual.

Thus we have defined the origin of the term "species" as far as the viewpoint of the evolution is concerned. Each individual energon is a structure capable of reaching an average active energy balance. The energon species is characterised by the additional ability of "reproduction".

The energons A and B meet with an evolutionary obstacle (W). Whereas energon A is not capable of duplicating its structure, energon B is capable of doing so because of the additional effective unit x. Energon A sooner or later dies but energon B has the chance to "survive" in one of its offspring. Further details in the text.
 

At this stage of development two different sets of values appear. The additional unit – the reproduction mechanism in its entirety – is of no use to the energon individual B (and to each of its offspring), it is even a burden. It does not increase the individual competitiveness but even reduces it by causing additional expenditure. In the individual competition – if there was no such barrier – energon A would have the advantage over energon B. Since it does not have this unnecessary expenditure, its balance is better.

All animals and plants which are equipped with reproductive organs bear a kind of burden which is of no use to them but even impairs their competitiveness. The respective species though profits from this expenditure which increases its competitiveness. If we want to define the competitive value of an energon, we first have to decide whether we mean the individual energon or the entire species. For the individual the costs of reproduction are mere debit items¹ whereas for the species this is not the case. In the case of the species adequate credit items (advantages) make up for the debit items. Individual and species also differ concerning the values of precision and speed of reproduction, there different correlations occur.

The differing interests of individual and species (or "genus") were on the mind of quite a few philosophers, for instance Schopenhauer². Also biologists have dealt with these interests-W. Zimmermann for example distinguished between the "individual value" and the "group value".³ In each case a different "useful value", a different "appropriateness" would arise. Thus different targets are presented for natural selection. In this sense Zimmermann makes a distinction between "individual selection" and "group selection".

What has however been overlooked so far is the existence of another, third standard which has always been included in the second.

Figure 32 is a diagram of the second barrier. The energon type B which is capable of reproduction meets with an obstacle which makes it impossible for itself as well as for its offspring to survive. This may be the case when energy sources run dry or unfavourable environmental conditions (disorders, predators, competitors) gain so much influence that the structure type basically is no longer able to reach an active energy balance. All individuals of that species will then be doomed to die-the species becomes extinct.

Energon C has exactly the same features but is able to produce not only conspecific individuals but also different individuals unrelated to the species due to the additional unit y. In the diagram there are two individuals (D and E): D is also not able to reach an active energy balance while E is able to do so. E thus "avoids" – "overcomes" even this barrier. Due to the different structure of individual E the barrier is no longer an obstacle, E is not affected by it. The new energon type may be capable of tapping new energy and material sources or is better prepared for natural forces. While B and C as well as their conspecific offspring are "keys" which are no longer able to open "locks", E is a different "key" which succeeds in unlocking other "locks".

Let us put it more directly: a new species has developed in this way. This species is viable whereas the species it originates from dies.

The essential ability to produce offspring unrelated to the species (illustrated by the mechanism y in the diagram) is largely based on the function of "mingling blueprints" (copulation, hermaphroditism) in organisms, which we already discussed in the last chapter. All animal and plant species which possess the required organs were thus superior to those which lacked such organs. Let us take a look at the competitiveness of these animals and plants.

It is obvious that the individual C is not superior to the individual B, both become extinct. C may even die more quickly – namely when the additional unit y constantly causes extra expense (that is because of handicaps or necessary maintenance). But even the species C is not superior to the species B. None of them may survive in an individual, both become extinct. The species C may even die sooner – when the additional unit y is a burden for the balance of its individuals. On the third level of evaluation, however, energon C is superior to energon B. Even though it does not survive in conspecific offspring, it continues to exist in offspring unrelated to the species.

The life flow which reaches an insurmountable obstacle in B and C flows on in structural type E.

What should we call this third and highest level of evaluation-in order to distinguish it from the terms "individuals" and "species"? I call it "life flow" which is not an ideal term but I can not find a better one. Since we are talking about the interests of the development of life, we could use the term "evolution value". But evolution is a process whereas a "value"-as well as individuals and species - should be connected with a spatial structure. The term "life flow" fulfils this requirement. What supports the "life flow", has "life flow value", is "beneficial to the life flow". This may sound complicated but it has the advantage of being unambiguous⁴.

All organs and processes of hermaphroditism are – in this terminology –beneficial only to the life flow. They are of no use to the individual, they are a burden to the balance. Whether it is animal or plant species: these organs do not serve the species. After all they cause a change in the species, that is, the life flow continues to exist in differently structured-species. These energons are so to speak "deserters" who change sides.

Seen from this angle it becomes very clear that it is incorrect to look upon reproduction and hermaphroditism as uniform, related features. Reproduction serves the purpose of species formation and species existence. The processes of hermaphroditism however serve the purpose of transformation of the species-and thus overcoming their limitations, in fact the extermination of species.

The seed plants are a good example for the way in which each of the three values for individuals, species and life flow-manifests itself in the energons.

Energon B and C meet with an evolutionary obstacle (W). B is only capable of conspecific reproduction; this type and all of its offspring die. C however produces conspecific individuals as well as individuals unrelated to the species (D,E) due to the additional effective unit y. C has the chance of surviving in one of its offspring-to carry on the evolutionary process.
 

What is of use to the individual in this case is only the leaf structure, along with roots, trunks and branches. Those organs which make plants so endearing, that is their flowers and fruits, are a burden to the individual. They are expenditures which have a negative effect on the balance.

Adapting the quotation of Goethe, we could say that three souls dwell within a plant. Leaves, roots, trunks and branches are of use to the individual. The fruits are reproductive organs -they are of use only to the species. And the flowers are organs for hermaphroditism that is for improvement – they are of no use, either to the individual nor the species, only to the life flow.

It is the same with animals: everything that serves only the purpose of reproduction is an organ of the species. What serves the sexual process of mingling blueprints is an organ of the life flow.

Necessarily these sexual organs had to be closely linked to the process of reproduction. They had to influence the germ cell and were of no use when copulation was not followed by reproduction. Therefore these organs are closely linked with each other though in terms of function they are miles apart.

In the course of evolution these differences in competitiveness resulted in quite a few cases of conflicting interests.
 

One of these conflicts has already been mentioned. Low production costs are always an advantage for the energon species but not for the individual energon (Part One, chapter VI, paragraph 6).

An individual animal or plant does not have an advantage in competition even if it takes up only half of the amount of energy for production needed by an otherwise equally matched competitor. What matters exclusively in this personal struggle against opponents is efficiency and resistance – the production costs have no influence on the result of the competition.

For the species however low production costs are a great advantage. If the species A is able to produce twice as many offspring as the competing species B while using the same amount of energy, it definitely has the advantage – if the young are totally equal. It then can produce twice as many offspring, using the same amount of surplus energy. Thus the chance that some of the young may find favourable conditions of life and may survive will be twice as good.

All this changes in the case of the human body of acquisition. Here it may happen that low production costs are an advantage in competition also for the individual – namely if the production of the energon is financed by credits which have to be paid back. The less an energon is burdened with such repayments, the better, since it may more quickly gain surpluses and put aside reserves.

Another already mentioned case of conflicting interests provides an even better example of how these values may possibly alter. All animals and plants are forced – by innate blueprints to produce conspecific offspring when they have an appropriate surplus. In reality this implies that they were compelled to produce their own competitors – since no energon other than another member of the same species is directed exactly towards the same type of acquisition.

It was the life flow which imposed these blueprints on the energons. It was able to survive, exist in them only if they possessed reproductive organs. It was a constructive restriction that exclusively conspecific offspring were produced –

there was no other possibility first. With the genetic blueprints being highly complex, the division as such turned out to be the main problem – it was virtually impossible that as a result a fir tree would develop out of the germ cell of a maybug or an earthworm out of that of a hippopotamus. In the first stage of evolution the interests of individuals thus clashed with those of the life flow and the species. For the individual the reproduction mechanism was an unnecessary burden. For the species and the life flow it was not just an advantage but simply a necessity.

In the second part of the evolution the values changed and the energons created by men no longer had to use their surpluses for producing conspecific energons. Since it is not the genetic blueprints that are responsible for reproduction but the central nervous system, each energon can now produce any other energon. What purpose does this serve, though?

It is without doubt of use to the individual which is now released from the nonsensical duty of producing its own competitors. It is however of no use to the species: its existence is now much less guaranteed. If the acquisition possibilities for an energon type are not ideal, it is more likely for the species that this type will be replaced by others⁵. The life flow however profits from an extraordinary gain: the surpluses automatically reach those places where the best acquisition possibilities the development of life are found. Thus "substance" is wasted much more rarely where it is of no real use to the life flow.

It takes some time to analyse these different values which are connected with one and the same structure. Another example of conflicting interest is the problem of the life span.

For every organism a life as long as possible is undoubtedly an advantage for the individual. This holds particularly true for all those animals which learn through experience. With growing age their competitiveness increases provided that they do not fall into decline. For the species as well a life span as long as possible is advantageous. Since then the size of the species will remain constant, with the number of required offspring being small.

For the life flow however a long life span is a disadvantage because each energon of old age takes away space from its successors, as far as acquisition is concerned. This means therefore that the chance of alteration – and thus improvement – becomes slimmer. Consequently a long life span of individuals hinders a higher development and increase in power⁶.

Even these few examples show the energons in a different light. The form of their body is certainly a unity but it was by no means shaped consistently in the course of the evolution. Values were added to the control mechanisms which were similar everywhere and were carried out by the external and inner fronts. And these values made demands too and were often diametrically opposed.
 

It is a rather universal phenomenon that animals eat up other animals or plants. For the organism that is being eaten this is certainly a disadvantage as well as for the species to which the organism belongs since it loses one of its members. For the life flow however the disadvantage is much smaller. When eating and digesting, a portion of energy is lost in the form of heat – the rest is preserved for the life flow. It is only shifted from one structure which transfers it to another.

In this way the life flow may even gain an advantage. If for example the organism that is being eaten is not capable of acquisition (or competitive) and thus not capable of reproduction, it is of no value to the life flow. The organism just uses up the last available energy resources. If it is eaten by a successful energon, that is, one which is capable of reproduction, the life flow gets back a share of its value. And another advantage is that due to the mutual extermination the average life span is shortened and thus the chance of improvements increased.

In the case of human body of acquisition this correlation gained even more importance. Let us assume that energon B steals an effective unit from energon A which is not coalesced with the energon – for example a shovel, a coin or any other functional unit. In this case the life flow does not decrease in value – provided that this unit is of the same use to energon B as it was to energon A. An effective unit of power is simply transferred from one energon to another. In this case as well may the life flow even profit from the process. If the effective unit of A did not have any function (like the shovel in the shed which is not used), its value for the life flow was very small. If it is now used by energon B, the power of the life flow will be increased.

This already indicates how some views common in totalitarian states are so to speak the mouthpieces of the interests of the life flow. Property which one person does not need but which would increase the acquisitive activity of another person is seen from this point of view to be judged negatively, it is so to speak a misdemeanour for society, a punishable offence.

In totalitarian states, e.g. in communist states, it is a postulate that everybody has to work in order to acquire the right to exist. Seen from the energon theory this means that humans are forced to fulfil their function as "germ cell". Everybody must develop professional entities or work within the organisations of acquisition-everybody has to "labour". This reminds us of the genetic pressure exerted on all animals and plants in the first part of the evolution to increase their acquisitive structure (instead of wasting their surpluses to such an extent that they were no longer of use to the development of energons).

But the interests of the life flow are becoming visible even in countries with market economies and economic policies (practically in all countries of the western world). The national economy profits from highly flourishing sales – thus it takes incentive measures in order to boost them. Neither the savings in the stocking nor the unused shovel in the shed boost economic activities. Surely, in these states unproductive property is not condemned and the individual cannot be forced to work. In this case a different means is used to reach the same goal. In every possible way the demands of consumers are aroused, which then make the individual strive for surpluses, spend the savings in the stocking and use effective units.

Our "hurry" which is becoming a chronic disease in the western world has its roots in this principle. It does not actually comply with the interests of the individual but with a totally different, superior interest which has from the beginning accompanied evolution as a sort of guiding agent.

Very tricky cases of conflicting interests arise when energons become a functional part of other energons. Today everybody knows this process: when a free-lance is employed – in the language of the energon theory: when a professional entity becomes an effective unit of a company or another professional entity.

Preliminary stages of this process can be found in the plant and animal kingdom: precursors for example are the already mentioned "digestion assistants" which live in the intestine of insects or mammals where they aid digestion and in so doing fulfil the function of a gland (Part One, chapter II, paragraph 4).

Figure 33 is a diagram illustrating this relation. A is an insect (like a termite), F is a digestion assistant (like a flagellate). A as well as F are energons though F becomes an organ, an effective unit of A by fulfilling a function in the interior of A (that is in its effect structure). Both energons profit from this relation. The digestion assistant is supplied with food in the stomach of the termite – it does not need to look for it; an enormous advantage for the balance. The termite on the other hand does not need to develop the necessary glands (which this energon perhaps was not able to produce). This thus has a positive effect on the balance of the termite.

Energon B in figure 33 is an example of a similar relationship: it has the same features as energon A (it is again a termite) except for the digestion assistant G living in the intestine – G differs from F in so far as it has a detrimental side effect (n), for example it discharges substances which attack the intestinal walls.

If energons A and B enter into competition, A, which is not hurt by its digestion assistants, will have the advantage. If the advantage is large enough, energon B will be forced back. This however means that energon G does itself harm due to its side effect. By hurting its "host" ("employer") it undermines its own existence. If the species B becomes extinct as a result of this burden on the balance, the species G will lose its source of acquisition. Should this be the only one the energon has, it will die too.

Thus if we want to determine the competitiveness of F and G, we need to take into account the positive and negative effects they have on their "hosts" (A and B). The more they are of use to their hosts, the better will they maintain their own source of acquisition. The more they harm the hosts – the more will they undermine it. As a general rule this holds true only for the species. The repercussions often appear long afterwards, so that they do not affect the individual.

Although it is quite different with the human body of acquisition the same principle applies to them. Each employee becomes an functional unit, an organ of the company he works for. Within this larger energon he fulfils a necessary function and gets paid for it. The company is his source of acquisition. The better he fulfils the function, the better for the company. If he harms it – he will have a negative effect on his own source of acquisition. Yet the repercussions do not necessarily affect him. If he lines his own pockets, he need not be affected by the damage (provided that he is not caught).

F and G have an certain necessary effect (f) inside the energons A and B. Since G furthermore has a detrimental effect (n), it harms its host (employer, firm) and thus indirectly itself. Details in the text.
 

The "species" however will be affected. To demonstrate this I prefer the example of machines to humans. If a machine for example often does not work, this will have a detrimental effect on the factory. The consequence is that people will know that and other companies will no longer buy the respective type of machine. In the language of the energon theory: energons which have this effective unit do not exist, "reproduce" (themselves) anymore, they "die out".

The same is the case when the functional unit is a human – in detail a professional entity, that is an energon. If this type of professional entity – or the type of human which is its centre – is not the right for the required function, negative effects occur. Other companies will know about them and avoid the respective type. Those with the unsuitable type of professional entity will become more seldom, they "do not reproduce", they "die out".

There are many sorts of parasites which live in the bodies of other organisms. As a rule they have an exclusively negative effect on their "hosts". Here repercussions also occur which in most cases do not affect the individual but the species.

Some parasites for example castrate their hosts, which consequently are no longer able to reproduce themselves. Thus these parasites undermine their own source of acquisition. This effect is irrelevant for the individual since it can be felt only after the death of the individual. For the species however it is a disadvantage. In future generations the individuals of that species will have far fewer sources of acquisition at their disposal.

Even this phenomenon has parallels in economic life, e.g. illegal ways of making a living. Let’s suppose that bank robbers succeed in making a spectacular coup. Thus they improve the individual balance of these professional entities – which are also energons – but at the same time undermine the "basis of existence" for the members of the their species. Their success makes society mobilise its defences and banks install more effective alarm systems. Thus "business" deteriorates, the "market" is disturbed and this source of acquisition is no longer as easily available for other bank robbers.

In general we can say that if an energon (digestion assistant, parasite, employee, robber within a state) lives in the body of another, larger energon serving as a source of acquisition, the positive or negative effects this energon has on its host will themselves have positive or negative repercussions not on the individual but on the species.

In almost all democratic countries there are two major parties facing each other today: one represents the interests of the employees, the other that of the employers. Both parties are aware of the fact that they need each other. The employer serves as source of acquisition for the employee – the employee serves as necessary effective unit for the employer. What they constantly been argue about is "a fair balance of agreement". How much profit does the employer have to pass on to the employee?

Or the other way round: How much energy may the employee take away from the employer?

If the energon theory proves right, computers will one day help to settle this contentious issue. What it is all about in the end is nothing other than the harmonising of competing values which are mutually dependent. If the optimum harmonisation can be calculated (a value which is influenced by various environmental factors), the loss of output will be very small for both parties and a "fair" effective output for both will be determined.

Within the state, too, the interests of the individual may serve or go directly against the interests of the community – the repercussions however are much more slower and complex (unless in the form of legal measures). A person evading taxes harms the state though he will hardly be affected by any repercussion – provided that he does not get caught. The numerous conflicting interests of states and the functional bodies which are subordinated to the states in the field of politics, civil and criminal law will never be settled by computers. But they may supply the basic data for the fundamental harmonisation.

Again and again in the course of evolution the hierarchic order of energons has involved the same problems. Each subordination to a bigger whole means that a balance has to be achieved between those energons which are part of other energons. Both energons benefit from this and have to accept the disadvantages. The appearance of multicellular organisms, siphonophorans or insect states (which consist of numerous multicellular organisms) may differ from that of companies, concerns, states and leagues in the end the situation, the problems, the necessity to reach a balance between the different energons are the same everywhere.

On each of these integration levels there are numerous correlations with the competitive value of the respective subordinate or superior partner. In the second part of the evolution the differences between the individual and species fade in importance. Very bitter conflicting interests occur between the professional entities and the enterprises as well as between the professional entities and enterprises and the "superior" state. The interests of the state – in totalitarian states as well as in liberal states-become to a large extent like the interests of the life flow⁷.

In addition to these rather complex correlations there are the luxury interests of humans (in detail: of the germ cell human being). They are also relevant in the sector of acquisition and even play an important role within the framework of competitiveness (survival).

It is hardly of direct advantage to a single professional entity or enterprise if those people making them up use the surpluses to increase their personal advantage. On the other hand it would become no longer necessary to invest these surpluses in conspecific reproduction – which as such is actually an advantage to them. Furthermore the surpluses spent on luxury benefit other energons and in this way – within the circular flow – serve the individual interest. Seen from the interests of the state and the entire life flow, the luxury interests of the germ cell human being are-as already mentioned – vitally important and beneficial. They may have the disadvantage of diminishing the defences of the state and in this way threatening it in the case of hypertrophy. By the way, men’s willingness to work and make progress is increased in this manner. The luxury interests indeed became the strongest impetus for the formation of energons – the main of all driving forces of evolution.
 

As for the energon theory, the life flow is the actual "reality", whereas the individual energons and energon species as well as their hybrids are only components and supporters of this process⁸. Even humans – as varied as their development may have become – are only components. We, too, continue this process which passed us by long ago⁹.

The life flow however is nothing personal, it is not an intentional or even conscious "will".¹⁰ It is a phenomenon, a causal event which like an avalanche gains power. What serves, upholds the life flow – continues to exist. What does not serve it – dies. Only in this sense can we say: this or that was in its "interest", increased its "value". The supporters of the life flow, the energons, compete with each other. For them competitiveness is vital: that energon which is more competitive upholds the life flow. The life flow itself does not know competition or "competitiveness". Here only the term "power" can be applied. According to the respective environment the avalanche in its entirety may be more or less competitive, may have a higher or lower "power".

Like a dubious wire puller the life flow influences every energon – very often contrary to its personal interest. On the other hand it is the greatest helper of all energons, the broad basis on which all are founded.

Who for example "paid" for all the innate structural blueprints and behavioural patterns of the organisms? These blueprints do not appear in any balance – neither in that of the energon individuals nor in that of the energon species. Every energon gets these blueprints as a free gift. Somebody however had to pay for them – the ancestors: each of them either formed new ones or passed on already existing ones.

Also the costs of each blueprint can – in principle – be calculated. They are made up by the number of generations which were necessary for their development; the total number of energons with the help of which the single improvements were achieved; the costs of the "total biomass" which had to be formed to achieve them. Seen from this perspective the "life flow" is (no longer) a frightening tyrant but a patient donor, a raiser.

In the second part of the evolution the "development costs for the recipes decreased tremendously. Improvements which in the genetic blueprint would perhaps have been achieved via millions of energons were now made available by a single central nervous system within years, days, even seconds, with a relatively small expenditure of energy. The way these improvements are transferred from one brain to another was manifold. Today they are collected, ordered and made available to all human energons by the gigantic community organ "science".

Even in this part of evolution the life flow serves as a donor on the one hand and as a tyrant on the other. We will leave out its function as donor – ungrateful as we are – and concentrate on the hidden dictator who controls even our most intimate actions. As if we were puppets and the life flow pulls the strings. By guiding us in certain directions it makes us serve not our but its interest.
 
 

Back to the Table of Contents

Continue to "Competition and the area of acquisition"
 
 
 
Comments:

¹ It is possible that an individual reduces its own power of  acquisition by growing too much. In this case the individual would also profit from ridding itself of a portion. To do so, differentiated reproductive organs are not necessary and  it is these organs we are talking about.
² „Zur Philosphie und Wissenschaft der Natur“, in „Parerga und Paralipomena: kleine philosophische Schriften“, Vol. 2. Berlin, 1851.
³ W. Zimmermann, „Methoden der Phylogenetik“, in G. Heberer, „Die Evolution der organismen“, Stuttgart 1967, pp. 137.
⁴ The term “life flow” may sound a bit metaphysical. I however understand by it nothing but all “vitalised” material in the dimensions of time and space: all the agent of  a causally proceeding event involving energy.
⁵ Another example may illustrate this even better: Whereas in the first part of the evolution violets at any rate produce violets, in the second part jewellers for example may easily close down their shops and set up night clubs if the economic situation is favourable to night-clubs but not to them. The energon “species” jeweller’s shop will then suffer some loss.
⁶ After World War Two it became clear that this principle applies to the bodies of acquisition in economic life as well. The destruction of so many companies and factories led to a reconstruction of factories which were much more up-to-date. If they had not been destroyed, the old structures-“species”-would have existed much longer and improvement and progress would have progressed only much more slowly. Even the dismantling of companies in the French occupation zones of Germany contributed to the economic miracle: whereas the machines in France were old, they were up-to-date in Germany.
⁷ We will take a close look at this tendency in Part Four, chapter VII.
⁸ Johann Gottfried Herder wrote: “At the human species evolution ended; we know no creature which is superior than humans and which is more manifold or artificially organised: he seems to be the highest form of end organisation which could be constructed” (“Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit”). This illustrates the opinion prevailing throughout history up to now.
⁹ Goethe and many other philosophers saw the organisms as “a purpose within itself”: seen from the life flow this is not true. Only the life flow itself is “a purpose within itself”.
¹⁰ For Schopenhauer and Nietzsche the “will” was the actual centre of organic appearances. The life flow in its entirety is indeed a “will”: not a conscious, intentional one but a process which in its continuation creates more and more complex correlations.