My investigation is thus completed. What I would like to add is something separate from this, a small detail. I believe that in order for my work to be complete it is necessary to add this, but without any critical considerations.

The attentive reader may have noticed occasionally that in some cases there is only a very minor difference between an "energon" and a "functional unit". Evidence of this is seen specifically in human professions. A baker with a small business of his own is an independent energon. If he accepts employment in a big bakery, then it is possible that his work will be nearly the same, and it remains an acquisition activity – however, he is not an energon anymore, but a functional unit within an energon.

While discussing the digestive strategies and the symbiotic algae we encountered an analogous case (Part One, chapter II, paragraph 4). Both categories of organisms are actually independent energons, but in the body of their "hosts" they become functional units.

What about the acquisition of energy in this context? The energon which within the body of another energon becomes a functional unit, gains energy and substances via service exchange. It produces a very specific effect which the host needs – and in return is provided with food. If we now look at a cell or an organ within a multi-cellular body, we find the same energetic relationship: the organ or the singular cell acquire energy and substances. It is as if they were "remunerated" for their service or performance. If an organ is not necessary any more, we see how the species gradually declines in the course of evolution. As it does not provide any service any more, it has lost, as it were, its right to exist. Its place of acquisition has ceased to exist, its source of acquisition has dried up.

This way of thinking can also be applied on each component of a machine. There, too, its basis for existence always is a function, an effect which is needed. When such an effect becomes superfluous, the functional unit – sooner or later – disappears from the scene... I shall not pursue these thoughts any further.

Ultimately this brings up the question whether every functional unit itself also should be seen as an energy acquiring system, i.e. as an energon – insofar as it is only built, maintained and taken care of as long it provides the required service or performance in exchange.

When an energon gives up its independence and becomes a functional unit within another energon: what becomes different then in the various sectors of its inner and outer fronts?

a) It says that not only all plants, animals, professional entities and business organisations, but also all functional units of which they consist are energons. The functional activity of the functional unit (f) would then be its "acquisition activity" (a). Because it acts that way – because this activity is needed – it exists.

b) Consequently this theory considers whether the functions – i.e. time processes – are not also "structured" according to the energon theory. Problems in space and problems in time would then be closely related (cf. Figures 28 and 30).

This theory is only alluded to here as a possible further development of the energon theory. If it is correct, the structures which in this book are called "energons" should have the title "independent energons" in order to distinguish them from functional units, which then should be called "dependent energons". When functions, too, are energons, these should be called "time energons" – in contrast to "spatial energons".
 

At the inner front hardly anything changes. The subordinate elements have to be bonded, co-ordinated, tuned and maintained. Some of these functions, e.g. giving orders or maintenance, can be fulfilled by the higher energon – but they have to be fulfilled. Also, protection against enemies is in most cases offered by the "host" of the functional unit – or better by its "employer" –, but when neighbouring organs cause disturbances further protection becomes necessary. Also coalitions of mutual support with other organs can be made. The only thing that really changes is the form of acquisition. This no longer consists in an immediate search for energy and substances – but the fulfilment of a function leads indirectly to acquisition via an act of exchange.

This brings up questions with serious consequences: are not all functional units built according to the structure of the energon? Is not the same inner value structure valid for them? Can they not also be discussed, even studied within this concept ? Are they not also – without exception – energons?

This practically means that the energon theory – beyond what is presented in this book – possibly can be developed considerably further. In that case we have to distinguish between "independent" and "dependent" energons.

Hence there arises a further field of application for the energon theory – maybe even the most interesting. For we are then confronted with a further question: whether the functions which exist in movement sequences (effects) are not also built according to the energon principle – whether these time structures have an energon structure, in a different dimension.

This sounds confusing, but it can already be seen in our common everyday language. We use the word "organisation" for a spatial structure – for example a factory – as well as for time structures – for example the organisation of a campaign.

A simple example: lighting a cigarette. This is a purposeful movement sequence which consists of subordinate units: to put your hand in your pocket, to search for the lighter, to take it into your hand, to bring it to your mouth, to click it with your fingers, to bring it close to the cigarette, to inhale the air, etc. Just as the functional units consist of a juxtaposition of certain spatial entities, the purposeful movement, the function, consists of a sequence of individual stages one after the other. Just as the functional units of an animal (e.g. eyes, mouth, bowels, etc.) only have the required effect when they are placed in a certain spatial order, also only a very specific temporal order of the individual movements leads to success. When I click first and only then put my hand into my pocket, my cigarette will not be lit.

If we look any further to see whether we can find the outer and inner fronts, which are essential for the energons, here, too, we find astounding parallels. Are there any disturbances? Yes, of course. Let us assume it rains. In that case the order of movements has to be adapted. The hand needs to become a protecting roof – that is an extra sequence of movements which becomes necessary because of these environmental aspects, which is steered by them. Is there any bonding, any co-ordination, tuning in, maintenance...?

This comes close to what Bogdanov, Feyerabend, Wieser, Stefanic-Allmayer and other organisation researchers were thinking of, even though some of them focused more on time processes and others more on spatial structures. Generally speaking, functionality becomes the basis of existence for these subordinate units which are partly physical and partly can be found in movement sequences. In any case they have to be functional, effective. Only then do they have an existence. Only then are they built or realised – only then do they acquire energyin this sense.

This, however, is not a proof, but merely an indication. Only the concept of "independent" energons is open to criticism.
 
 

Back to the Table of Contents

Continue to "The word soul"