I will now try to forge a link between modern physics’ conception of the world and the theory of the energon. This link forges itself.

The highly revolutionary findings which have been attained by physical research during the last seventy years were proved with the explosion of the first nuclear bomb most impressively – and are now put into question by hardly anybody. Nevertheless, those discoveries did not find their way into the general way of thinking and assessing – the consequences deriving from them were not drawn.. It is as if in practical life we have proceeded from the hand-axe to the bulldozer but wherever our thinking and our emotions are concerned we prefer to remain with the hand-axe.

Modern physics has clearly proved that practically everything in the world is basically different from the way it is depicted by our senses and our brain. Everything we call matter or "substance" is indeed a manifestation of energy. If one operates with the term "materialism" today, then this is hardly justified any more. For exactly what matter seems to be, something huge, clumsy and very different from our emotions and feelings, has no real basis. It is merely an interpretation by our highly faulty senses. That huge, clumsy thing that is "blindly obedient to primitive laws" in truth is a manifestation of highly differentiated forces. What we call matter consists wholly of the same mysterious something which also forms the basis for the most subtle processes and also for our processes of thinking and feeling. The most important of those great discoveries are called to mind here.
 
 

First discovery: everything we see around us, whether it is a stone, the air or a chicken simmering in a pot, consists of the same minute particles¹. Today their sizes and their qualities have already been explored in detail. They have a diameter of 1.2 to 1.4 times 10^-13cm. That means they are about a billion times smaller than a millimetre. If such a particle had the size of a cherry – then the cherry, on the same scale, would have a diameter about as big as the distance between the earth and the sun.

Despite that tininess it became possible – by means of highly refined technical facilities – to experiment with those "elementary particles" (protons, neutrons, electrons and others).² With that the amazing view of Einstein, that matter is an equivalent of energy, could be confirmed experimentally. In 1932 C. D. Anderson achieved the proof that an electron (with its anti-particle the positron) can "de-radiate" completely – so that matter is fully transformed into energy. Since then such a "de-radiation" could also be proved with protons and neutrons. The transformation of energy into an elementary particle – thus of free energy into matter – was first observed by Blackett and Occialini (1933). In that case there was an electron and a positron built out of a radiation quantum – this is called "formation of a pair". For this, too, the Nobel prize was awarded. Since then proof for the formation of protons and neutrons out of pure energy has also been found³.

So this is what first has to be hammered into the brain which does not want to grasp it: all matter in the cosmos consists of the same minute units – and they are manifestations of energy. They can be built out of energy and can transform themselves fully into energy. The transformation-proportion is as follows: each gram of matter corresponds to 9x10²⁰ (square of the speed of light) erg energy. To convert this value into calories, one has to multiply it by 2.39 times 10^-8. An example: if it were possible to "radiate" the whole matter of a human body of 80 kilograms, then this would produce 1.7x10¹⁸ calories This corresponds to almost the total world demand for electric energy for seven and a half months.

Here our brain says: that’s all very well, that may well be but how should that change my ideas?

It should already change a lot, but let’s move on.

Those tiny elementary particles build up the atoms. Some of those particles (protons, neutrons) build the "nucleus", others (electrons) circle around the latter and thus build "shells". One imagines these to be like systems of planets but it is not as simple as that. Atoms are static-energy structures where our perceptual imagination fails. At any rate, the diameter of atoms can also be clearly determined. It lies between 1 and 5 times 10^-8cm. That means hat atoms are about 100,000 times bigger than the elementary particles of which they consist. A hydrogen atom consists of only two elementary particles; an uranium atom consists of a few hundred. Practically this also means: what our senses perceive as stable matter is to the largest degree only "empty space". If an iron atom were as big as the earth, then its actual matter (mass) would correspond to approximately the size of ten pyramids of Cheops, the rest would be "empty space".

The single "shells" of atoms are built up by the circulating electrons: the atom is spherical and presents itself as something "stable" and "hard" to influences from the outside. The energies which on the one had hold together the nucleus and on the other hand build the "shells" surrounding the nucleus are enormous – however, they are by far not as big as the energy equivalents of the particles themselves. These "nuclear powers" are found today in nuclear fission ("smashing of atoms").⁴

Thus: all atoms (there exist about a hundred different "kinds": the elements) in the end consist completely of energy. The actual matter which is contained in those structures only builds the quadrillionth part of their volume, the rest is "empty space" and energy. Also, the tiny particles of matter themselves are again energy.

If one forces the brain to deal with that fact that is so contrary to "reasonable thinking", then the answer is: that’s all very well, that, too, may well be but what does it change in the end? Why should I be interested in those tiny dimensions with which I practically have no contact? What does that change in my life, concerning my feelings, my job, my pleasure? What does it change concerning the bed in which I sleep, concerning the friend to whom I talk?

Our brain simply puts that aside, packs that new knowledge neatly and tidily into one of its many drawers – and then carries on as usual. That has happened with almost everybody familiar with those facts – including a large number of physicians.

Yet we should make our brains draw an important conclusion from that. It is the following: we should not rely so steadfastly on our "reasonable thinking". The world is indeed different than the way it is depicted by our senses. We live in a world of imagination which is suitable for the "macroscopic field" – and thus for everyday use – which, however, does not correspond to reality in any way.

A further consequence: we also should not rely so steadfastly on our senses, on our logic, on our "healthy reasonable thinking and assessing", on our "healthy feeling", on our "common sense" also with other judgements.

These are – in my opinion – the consequences concerning the conception of the world which we have to draw from the discoveries of modern physics.
 
 

The atoms on the other hand build up "molecules". Thus we reach areas which we can perceive with our senses and which we can imagine pictorially with the tool that is our brain.

Today the biggest molecules, which consist of hundreds of thousands, even millions of atoms (for instance the genetic blueprints) can already be made visible with the most powerful electron microscopes. Also with every molecule the atoms which build it up are held together by forces. The amount of energy needed for that is about ten to a hundred times smaller than the that of energy bonding the electrons to the nucleus of the atom. These forces are those which the main subject of "chemistry". Classical chemistry is practically the science of molecules.

Atoms are separated from molecules through chemical "reactions" and those atoms then build up other molecules. Today the structure of a great number of molecules – even of particularly big and complicated ones – is very well known. In 1962 M. F. Perutz was awarded the Nobel prize for having solved the structure of the haemoglobin molecule (which consists of more than 100,000 atoms).

All rocks and metals, all animal and plant bodies consist of molecules – and they are built up from about a hundred types of atoms. Every type of atom consists of the same elementary particles – and they are manifestations of energy.

Further phenomena that exist in this world are the manifestations of light, of sound, of smell, of heat, of electricity, of magnetism, of bodily movements and of gravitation.

All of these are also manifestations of energy and most of them can be measured directly in terms of one of the units of energy. Electromagnetic vibrations are energy units which fly through space. Every bodily movement is energy – I deliberately do not say it has energy.

Heat is the vibration of molecules and atoms – also a type of energy. Electricity, magnetism and gravity are also manifestations of energy.

According to the discoveries of modern physics there are no scientifically provable phenomenona in the universe at all which neither derive from energy, nor have their roots in energy nor are caused by energy. Even space and time are, according to Einstein, nothing absolute. They are not a "something" in which "matter" and energy develop – but also another function of energy.

However, what "energy" is we do not know.
 
 

The life process had its beginning in the molecular field What is strange and special about that process is that it is manifested in structural formations which enlarge themselves by some sort of auto-catalysis⁵.

Crystals also "grow". However, they represent states of balance which atoms achieve by means of energetic effects ("valences"). Molecular structures which are called "living things", on the contrary, are build up in such a way as to increase their content of free energy on average. "Living" structures manage in one or the other way – and with that we come back to the subject of this book – to seize free energy and incorporate it into themselves and there with the loss of a considerable part (which escapes as "heat") a smaller unit is lifted to a "higher level of voltage", to a higher "level of intensity".⁶ What is more, they are constituted in such a way that with the help of that energy the process continues, the structure draws further substances to itself and incorporates them into the structure and by that enlarges or increases it.

Admittedly, all that does not explain the development of life in the least. However, this is where the energon theory comes in. It explains: whatever is the cause for the continuation of that process: it does not have any influence on how the structures that are necessary for its continuation have to be constituted.

More precisely: no matter whether coincidence, a special "mechanism", human intelligence, a supernatural "life force" or a personally created god generates those structures: in any case they have to have a particular construction. The type of "originator" no doubt influences how fast or how slow such formations take place and even what formations can be attained by the process – but either way: the result has to have certain qualities as only then can it continue the process.

That necessary structure – this is what the energon theory claims – derives from the qualities belonging to "matter" and energy. If some god changed them, then also the structure would have to be constituted differently. However, under the prevailing, observed and measurable conditions in the cosmos the structures where the life process can continue are mapped out, as it were. They are a necessary consequence. Should a similar process have developed on another planet, then the energons which carry it on – if there the co-operation of environmental conditions is different – may appear different on the outside. However, also there the inner construction – necessarily – has to correspond to the same laws.

This is the central point which makes this theory so difficult to understand. Our brain is aligned with looking for explanations of all phenomenona via their direct causes. The energon theory on the contrary says: no matter what those direct causes may look like, they have – through selection and causality of steering – to lead to a certain result. Only something which is capable of achievement and which is competitive can exist and carry on life process. Structures which do not have that ability cannot exist – no matter how they have been generated.

Thus, the energon theory explains – in its essence – that life process is built up on an invisible basic structure which has been mapped out on the basis of the given physical effects which forms the basis for its development. It is a "value-structure" which cannot be perceived with the senses but can be expressed in numbers. It is the basic structure that is necessary for the capability of acquisition and competitiveness.

That invisible value-structure is the "hidden common feature" that is characteristic of all energons. It is based on categories that on the one hand summarise environmental effects and on the other hand problems that occur inside the energons⁷.

The most important alignment is always the one towards an acquirable source of free energy. With that every energon – even if it lives on the Andromeda nebula – has to correspond as a key does to its lock. Every energon in the first place has to be constituted in such a way so as to be able to "unlock" a source and to achieve an average active balance of free energy.

Further environmental conditions dictate further necessary features. According to the effects one can distinguish between hostile and supporting environmental effects: the former includes rapacious energons, unaimed environmental disturbances and competitors, the latter includes all energies from the outside which the energon forces into its service violently and others which it subordinates by way of exchange.

Thereupon every energon also has to "cope with" problems inside itself – thus it has to be built so that it is still able to fulfil further demands. Each of its parts – of its "functional units" – has to be linked to the others in some way. Furthermore, parts that have active functions have to be co-ordinated in their activities. In addition to that, the individual effects should not disturb each other but instead should support each other wherever possible. In order to maintain the effect, maintenance and often also repairs are necessary. Many functional units have to be supplied with amounts of energy and substances and have to be relieved of the produced waste. Finally, for many energons it is important that they adjust themselves to constantly changing environmental conditions, that is that they are able to change and improve their structures .

In each of those categories – which build "parts of the front" of the energons, as it were – three standards of assessment are important: the respective costs that arise, the precision of the achieved effects and their speed. The first two criteria, namely the costs and the precision, do always and in all categories influence the total degree of suitability of the energon. The respective speed of the effect is often influential but not always.

That already results in about a hundred measurable values which build up the inner structure of values and which have to be taken into account in every calculation of competitiveness. Those values also influence each other: their correlations also play a role⁸.

The outer fronts (1-5) depict environmental influences which can be summarised into these categories due to their similar kinds of influence. They necessitate functionally related facilities within the energon and burden its balance in a comparable way. Each of those outer fronts directs the evolutionary developments of the functional units that become necessary because of them and thus influence the time and space structure of the energon.

The inner fronts (6-10) depict further demands which the energon has to fulfil in order to exist and to work successfully. Those "influences", however, come from the inside. They can also be summarised in groups – i.e. those five categories – according to the functional facilities that become necessary because of them. They also force corresponding functional units onto the energon. They also direct the evolutionary development of the functional units and of the whole body.

Line 1-10 graphically depicts the total expenditure of energy of the energon. The sizes of the single sequences are different for various energons as they depend on the expenditures which become necessary due to the respective fronts. This scheme can also – for the assessment of the degree of competitiveness – be set up separately for the construction period, the phases of acquirement, the phases of rest and the miscellaneous closed-down phases. Such a classification then builds the "visiting card" of the respective energon. It provides clues for the inner value structure which is relevant for its competitiveness.
 

Finally, there are still the three different "levels" of the assessment: the energon individual, the energon "species" and the life flow. With energons that occur in interlocked form other levels of assessment also come into play – for instance between professional entities and the life flow these would relate to the individual business, a group of companies, the state, or a confederation of states.

In my opinion these are the most important elements that build up the invisible value structures of all energons. They are certainly augmented by further elements. What is important here is that this is a system of assessment and a system of terms which is not only valid for all energons but which also for every energon, in relative terms.

Only if all those values and their correlations have been determined for many individual and many different types of energons d – a gigantic task – will it be possible to distinguish the main lines of tension within that complex network of effects and to recognise the main phenomenona. Only then will it be possible to determine the actual backbone of competitiveness – and with that the common backbone of various big groups of acquisition – and finally the central backbone of all energons. It is impossible to do this with ordinary arithmetic, however, computers can manage this task.

We will then view plants and animals in a new light: not in the light of their outer, colourful, confusing shapes but in the light of the "value structure" hidden inside – "underneath". In order to assess types of professions and businesses in particular, that value structure is of not inconsiderable significance. Only from this can one determine the key points and key relations for the necessary time and space structure.

We will then also reach the point – and this seems especially important to me – where we arithmetically determine rational and fair matchings between energons with different levels of integration (for instance between employees and their firm, between citizens and the state, between an enterprise and the state). Today this happens by rule of thumb, experience and judgement – but to what degree views differ is shown in every argument between employers’ associations and unions or between professional associations and the state. Even more significant – seen from the standpoint of world politics – are the arguments between different state structures. Here, too, we could make better progress if we can replace polemics and war by determining values mathematically.

What unforeseeable consequences one single emotional, incorrect assessment can have is shown by the recipe with which Karl Marx burdened the whole communist world. He saw deplorable states of affairs and thought that they could only be rectified by the eradication of a whole branch of functional units: with the eradication of entrepreneurs. He failed to see the major functional importance of those organisationally enthusiastic and venturesome units. The idea of a "surplus value" produced by the worker which unfairly flows into the pockets of the entrepreneurs blinded him so strongly that he failed to see the complementary "surplus value" that is produced by the entrepreneur. Particularly that latter "surplus value" is of not inconsiderable importance – not only for the individual business but over and above that as an impulse for the total economy of a nation.

If one could determine the value structure of energons and gain control of it, then ideologies and endless disputes would not be necessary any more to eliminate such conflicts of interests. Rational research – with the earthworm as well as with industrial businesses – together with a computer could achieve this.

It is quite important to ask what measures should be used in order to measure all this.

If we compare the competitiveness of closely related energons, then the comparison of single relevant values may already be sufficient to determine the key points of difference. Here no new and universal measure is yet necessary.

If, on the contrary, we have general comparisons of very different energons, then the value of their competitiveness is depicted as the sum of degrees of effects and what we then practically determine is the degree of adjustment to a given task. If the optimum is 100%, then the respective degrees of "efficiency" are correspondingly lower. The resulting value could be called efficiency value (EV) – unfortunately, this combination of letters is already used for the electron-volt. Therefore I would suggest OV ("organisation value") instead.

Another necessary measure creates by far bigger problems: namely the one used for the extent of "differentiation".⁹ It derives from the necessary number of functional units, as it were, necessary for a key to be able to open a lock. Only the highly differentiated structure "lion" is able to achieve what a lion is able to do. Only the highly differentiated structure of the IG-Farben company or jet aircraft can achieve what IG-Farben or a jet can accomplish. The fact that those numbers do not derive from a linear juxtaposition (as with the key bit) but from a complicated hierarchic grading most likely does not affect the basic problem. We also measure "information" linearly in bits although news broadcasts are not linear processes in that later announcements are often based on earlier ones and can only be understood in relation to them. Also, with every complicated transmission of information – just as with every complicated organisation – we find hierarchically constructed complexes.

Whether the degree of organisation can accordingly also be measured in bits remains to be proved. Should a separate measure become necessary, then the term org would be possible. With that measure one could then also determine the "total achievement" of differentiation within evolution.

There are a number of parallels between modern physics and the theory of the energon.

Modern physics has put the "individual" effectiveness of inorganic phenomenona into the background in favour of effectiveness that is only statistically determinable. If the energon theory turns out to be true, then it also leads to the primacy of statistical values concerning the field of life-development and the development of humanity.

Modern physics has found the same mysterious something, "energy", repeatedly in all phenomenona. The energon theory considers all evolution as a manifestation, as an development of energy. The briefest definition of the energon is "the necessary structure of the energetically actives".

Thus, eventually: "a structure capable of acquiring what develops within itself".

Modern physics goes against our senses, against our brain’s natural forms of assessment and transforms the formerly concrete world into a highly inconcrete one: the energon theory– in the organic field – takes a similar direction. Sensual ways of assessment move into the background and also organisms, especially humans of course, become inconcrete.

The energon theory finds itself in sharp opposition to classical biology.

The latter considers – and nothing has changed in this respect since Aristotle – the limitations of every living thing to be where its coherent structure ends. The cat ends with the tips of its whiskers, the oak tree with the last runner of its roots. It is true that in ecology there has always been a deep interest in the interrelations between organism and environment but so far the concept "living being" – as far as I know – has never been questioned by any biologist. To be precise: never before was there any doubt that the genetically created organic structure justifies the limiting term "living being", that this term not only derives from obvious experience but that it characterises reality as such, that "living beings" which are defined in such a way are what make up evolution what carry it on and depict it.

The energon theory, on the other hand, considers the organisms to be effect structures which do not necessarily end with the obvious boundaries. They end at the boundaries of the "functional units" connected to them – and they do by no means have to be tightly joined with the rest of the entity of effect.

The relations which according to the energon theory are important cannot be forced into the scheme homology–analogy. What becomes significant here is neither the phylogenetic connection nor a similar external appearance. An antibody in the blood, a sting and a recipe for the behaviour of escape are neither homologue nor analogue (and also not "convergent") – nevertheless one has to assess them together. They serve the same complex of effects: the repulsing of robbers. They are "related concerning their effects". In the balance that shows the existential backbone "capability of acquisition and competitiveness" they belong to the same category.

The energon theory is the science of the structures of effect, of the functional units, of the relations of effects. It says: these are what finally count.

Ernest Solvay came very close to defining the energon. He defined organisms as "energy-transformers in potential states".¹⁰ He explained that humans cannot judge "within themselves and for themselves".¹¹ He also considered human communities as energetic structures¹². He saw all evolution in its inner relations¹³.

Wilhelm Ostwald, who dedicated his book to Solvay, applied the term "energy-transformer" to organs and tools (including machines) of the human bodies of power. Their significance lay in the fact "that they make possible a favourable transformation of the rough energy that was worked on with their help and that they consequently bring about a better production of utilisable energy". Accordingly, what is called "means of production" by the economist he calls "means of transfer".¹⁴

For Ostwald the energy balances were the central phenomenona (p. 60). Animals he called the "parasites of the plant kingdom" (p. 52). The sphere of activity he called "energetic area" (p. 73). He emphasised the fact that with the use of "outside energies" through humans "they do not stem from his body but that they are taken from the outside world". The direct utilisation which does not take place via the detour of the body he considered to be "the decisive step towards the rule of the earth" (p. 81).

Ostwald summarised the phenomenona of the human increase of power with the term "cultural activity". That was a serious mistake because the term "culture" stands for many things that do not permit purely economic assessment. So especially for the sociologists to whom he addressed his book¹⁵ it became extremely difficult to understand its actual meaning. This was partly the reason why I made a clear distinction between the activity of acquisition and "luxury".

Kurt Wieser¹⁶, some of whose ideas also came close to the energon theory, suggested adding a third law to the two basic laws of thermodynamics. He called it the "law of the increasing effect of single sources of energy". He formulated it as follows: "In individual cases single elemental forces structure other elemental forces around them." Wieser hardly dealt with other authors; his explanations are difficult to read. However, they contain remarkable ideas and especially the above suggestion seems to me justified in a certain way.

The first law of energy says that energy is indestructible. It divides itself, melts into something but is always maintained. This is a basic phenomenon for which still no "explanation" has been discovered. The second fundamental law says that the amount of free energy is diminished with every transformation of energy¹⁷. The intensities are balanced. This is also a fundamental phenomenon that was discovered empirically but for which no further "explanation" is available so far. Now if Wieser adds to those two basic phenomenona a third one, namely that energy masses together, differentiates and manifests itself in ever more powerful potentials – the vehicles of life process – then this does not seem unjustified to me. Again we are confronted with a basic feature of the special something, "energy", which cannot be explained any further. In the end, the whole of evolution is based on this basic feature. Mind you: the structures cannot be explained with it – however, it can explain the fact that such structures could come into existence.

The physician – for whom organisms are outside his "competence" – may hardly be inclined to add such a basic law to the two earlier ones. From the viewpoint of the energon theory, on the other hand, I find it is a reasonable suggestion.

The most amazing foresight indeed has to be attributed to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus. From his writings only about a hundred "verses" have been preserved and parts of them are rather obscure, even banal. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt about the fundamental view – summarised in the saying "everything flows" – of this thinker.

Consider: at a time when scientific thought had only just started to develop, surrounded by motionless rock, by soil, tree trunks, houses, metal this man was so bold as to explain that in the end everything is motion – that is "fire" as he said. Considering the phenomena known in those times he could not have chosen a better symbol for energy.

Many a theory has suffered from the fact that its founder mixed it with attempts at explanation and with the conclusions resulting from it. This was the case with Darwin. What he presented as such was in no way one concept but two concepts that were completely independent from each other. The first one, the actual theory of evolution, said: all living things are related; they are, as it were, branches of one and the same big development. By now overwhelming evidence has been produced for that.

Additionally, Darwin tried to give an explanation for that process. He believed – just as his predecessor Lamarck – that acquired features can become inheritable, however, he put the "selection of the more useful through natural selection" into the foreground. This is a quite different, second theory that has remained disputed until today. As by this "coincidence" becomes the actual originator of all organic phenomena many people opposed it strongly. Furthermore, since the two theories were presented as a unity they at the same time came up against the theory of evolution.

I would like to avoid making a similar mistake in this book. Also what has been presented here is – strictly speaking – not one concept but several.

The energon theory as such does not say anything about how energons come into being, it does not deal with their evolutionary development. What it rather explains is: no matter how an energon comes into existence, its shape in time and space is prescribed by a particular value-structure. Thus, if I have also tried to give explanations for the development of energons, then this is something additional.

The first such explanation – and thus the second theory presented by me – may be called the extended theory of evolution. It says that the evolution of animals is directly continued with the bodies of acquisition built by humans. The main arguments for that are the science of "artificial organs" (of "functional units that have not coalesced") and the science of how the central nervous system (cf. appendix IV) takes over the construction of blueprints (especially blueprints for the building of structures). This theory does indeed spring from the same way of thinking to which the energon theory leads but is not part of the latter. If the extended theory of evolution were wrong – assuming that indeed the original theory of evolution were wrong – then the energon theory would not be affected. Even if – as Linné surmised – every single species of animals and plants were a personal construction of god, even if it turned out that all acquisitional structures created by humans were founded on an immaterial "soul" that was innate to humans (which still many people believe) – even then, says the energon theory, energons would have to be constituted just as they are now.

As another attempt at explanation I presented a view (Part 1, chapter VII) which I would like to call the theory of steering. It says that the effective outer and inner factors themselves are what has directed (and directs) the evolutionary development of the energons by way of "steering-causality". That steering takes place according to the same principle that also forms the basis for steering processes within the bodies of organisms and with human technology – however, it happens in quite unaimed, "unintentional", "unwanted" fashion. This concept, too, is merely an addition. If it is wrong, the energon theory – precisely because it does not deal with the development of energons – will not be affected.

The fourth concept I have presented I call the theory of functional cyclical processes (Part Two, chapter IV). They present a set of rules showing how the sequences of functional changes can produce progress and higher development. It is also an addition and does not affect the energon theory directly.

The fifth concept – the theory of the four basic types of the state – is an attempt to apply the energon theory to the types of states. If there should be any mistakes in the logic, then the principle of the energon is not affected directly. Nevertheless, these two theories are closely related.

Let us now – to conclude – turn our view to the future. Do these theories make it possible to make any predictions about the further development of humanity?
 
 

Back to the Table of Contents

Continue to "Today and tomorrow"
 
 

Comments:

¹ This is largely confirmed by the fundamental philosophy by Democrit us(460-371 B.C.)
² Whether they are in fact the smallest material units cannot yet be determined. Today in physics there are theories that are taken quite seriously which suppose a further inner structure of the elementary particles (e. g. the so-called quark-model by Murrey Gell-Man).
³ Already in 1887 Wilhelm Ostwald formulated the opinion that matter was “a secondary product of energy”.
⁴ I give a few examples for energy values in appendix V.
⁵ Catalysts cause chemical transformations without getting involved in the final product. Auto-catalysts (“self-catalysts”) lead to the increase of their own structure –also without being included in the newly generated substance themselves. One example is water. In order to generate water out of oxyhydrogen one needs – at least in traces – water. The latter, as it were, is the necessary inducement for H and O atoms to combine to form H2O-molecules.
⁶ Goethe characterised “organic beings” as follows: “They process the food that has been taken into particular organs and they only use a part of it, while secreting the rest. The former they provide with something exquisite of their own.” (From: “Vorträge über die drei ersten Kapitel des Entwurfs einer allgemeinen Einleitung in die vergleichende Anatomie, ausgehened von der Osteologie”, 1796). Goethe probably thought of the formation of organic structures in the first place. Yet, his formulation is also applicable to energy. Here, too, one part is provided with “something exquisite of their own” ,while the rest is secreted.
⁷ Goethe wrote: “Therefore this is where a suggestion for an anatomical type is made, for a general picture where the possible shapes of all animals are included and according to which every animal would be described in a certain order. That type would have to be set up with the strongest physiological orientation possible.” This last sentence is significant for the direction of Goethe’s thoughts: “physiological” means according to the function, to the effect. (“Erster Entwurf einer allgemeinen Einleitung in die vergleichende Anatomie, ausgehend von der Osteologie”, Jena 1795). Later, a basically similar way of thought was pursued by W. Roux the founder of  developmental mechanics. He defined it “as the science of the constitution and the effects of those combinations of energy which produce development”. He searched for the “reasons for the forms of living things” and considered the developmental process as a causal event. (W. Roux, “Gesammelte Abhandlungen über die Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen”, Leipzig 1895.)  The energon theory follows up both these lines of thought.
⁸ I do not provide comparisons of measurements in this book. From economic data and already existing measuring of organisms a number of comparisons can already be made but their meaningfulness is very limited. It remains for pure research to be undertaken according to the new criteria.
⁹ B. Hassenstein deals with this question in “Kybernetik und biologische Forschung”, Handbuch der Biologie 1/2 Frankfurt 1966, p. 634.
¹⁰ “… transformateur de l’energie qui a l’etat potentiel…” in “Notes sur des Formules d’Introduction a L’Energetique Physio- et Psycho-Sociologique”, Brussels 1906, p. 4.
¹¹ “D’autre part, il apparait avec la meme evidence, que l’organisme “homme” ne peut plus etre envisage en lui-meme et pour lui-meme exclusivement. Il doit etre considere dans ses rapports energetques avec la societe.” (p. 7.)
¹² „Chaque groupe humain particulier, l’espèce humaine tout entiere, doivent etre considerés comme une reaction chimique organisée qui se continue et tend a se développer sans cesse, suivant sa loi ineluctable, malgré les obstacles de touts ordres et l’intervention de facteurs intellectuels toujours nouveaux.“ (p. 25.)
¹³ „En somme, et au point de vue le plus general, l’être vivant serait une réaction organisée spécialement pour oxyder à froid, de manière continué et avec dégagement final d’énergie, un milieu propre : sa raison d’ être initiale, sa loi, son but, son interêt seraient la production et la continuation prolongée de cette oxydation dans les meilleures conditions possibles.”
¹⁴ “Die energetischen Grundlagen der Kulturwissenschaft”, Leipzig 1909, p. 149.
¹⁵ It is remarkable that this book which got hardly any attention was published in the same year Ostwald was awarded the Nobel prize (1909).
¹⁶ This is not the biologist Prof. Kurt Wieser who also dealt with organisational questions (for instance: Organisman, Strukturen, Maschinen”, Frankfurt 1959) but his father, who was a constructor and owner of a factory. The only book he published was “Das Gesetz der Organismen”, Budapest 1943, furthermore he deposited two scripts with the National Library in Vienna (see bibliography). Ing. Wieser hardly got any response to his ideas. He left a number of unpublished writings.
¹⁷ Thus, while energy as such is indestructible, “free energy” – as Ostwald put it – is “destroyed” constantly (p. 33).