One may be inclined to compare the entirely non-substantial noetically-existentially-functional [nature of any holistic entity, any holon] in one way or another with the almost non-substantial [nature] of the elementary field. But this will not bring us much further. The static field theory, as well as the dynamic wave-mechanical theory of the elementary particles, which can be expanded to complete atoms in the particular sense that their properties are the result of superposition of the constituent fields, that is, of their "basic oscillating systems", finds its [referring to "field theory"] "active" conclusion in the molecule, because the molecular formation [i.e. the formation of a molecule] is the most "certain" or clear expression of the fact that field activity was still there, and still one may take also the molecular properties as so-called passive field effects. To the phenomenon of wholeness the field conception may perhaps be still of some use -- being suggested by the special nature of the organogeneous elements (C, O, H, N) -- to create the special super-field characteristic of the organismic, a super field whose existence may clarify special features. The range of such a field might be sufficient for transformations by impact and others. Would one then arrive also at a "field" of uniform nature which may take over the function of wholeness, that is, operating in a directing fashion? The following may then be said about it :
Organismic special structure makes licit the thought of a special residual effective field, and one may also relate to this the existential self-function, because the by us assumed realizations of potencies must in the end also be field effects. And then Unimol is the exclusive possibility to obtain, with the organismic special field, the connection with the normal molecular residual fields, whereas the system-view as summation, being merely compatible with something field-like to which one cannot attribute any wholeness behavior. It would then [in the system-view] be comparable to those forces of [electrical] charge and other forces, forces that hold together the colloid-chemical complexes and coacervates and effecting their stability. So there certainly do exist analogies, but one finally comes out at "fields" that so little correspond to those that have unquestionable physical reality that one probably ends up with a phantasy field. Certainly, it is merely a temptation as a result of the -- not complying with the facts -- immateriality of the elementary particle- or atomic field, which has been brought into essential connection with the immaterial "something", directing the wholeness behavior and that one may place in and above the organismic matter work.
The "non-substantiality" of the existential self-function [ESF] evidently may not be identified with lack of equivalences [such as material counterparts]. How and where is the equivalent of an existential self-function? What happens when this function (as it is in a given case) disappears? Is there left merely a little amount of "heat" as a result of energetic regrouping of supporting matter? Isn't it so that nevertheless an essential qualitative equivalent must remain? Yes! But we know not enough about it, and apart from certain speculative representations, we may comfortingly say : They are the newly created existential self-functions of the [material] products [generated as a result of the disintegration of some given Substance with its proper existential self-function, ESF ]. Evidently, one cannot hold that the ESF of a given organism is merely the sum of a multitude of constituent subordinated ESF's :
This contradicts the definition and view of the ESF. The "equation" (in fact an inequality) has only significance in natural philosophy. [In accepting the above equation] one seems to return to element animation [i.e. animation already of the elements themselves], not, however, in a phantastic sense, but in the way shown by us [regarding the properties of the organogeneous chemical elements, C, O, H, N], and especially as satisfying the law of conservation saying that from truly nothing nothing can emerge. The organismically psychic is already contained in the constituents, albeit not fully-fledgedly but only in the form of potencies for it, with a certain simultaneous partial realization in inorganic existential self-functions (with at the same time a short circuit of the "remaining" [potencies] [i.e. the shut-down of the other potencies].
As against our uncountable individual sensory qualities [i.e. qualities that can be detected by the senses], the existential self-function [ESF] is a superordinated mega-quality of the "Substance-as-it-is-in-itself ". It is, so to say, the quality of Being, which we, in sensuously thinking, inspect point by point, and so, as a result -- in a truly gap-infested lattice -- establish a part of it conceptually as something objective. The relevant large rest documents and identifies itself in our organismic subjective (self-) consciousness. As a result, we essentially are "complete" again (without detecting it, only the non-thinking "feels" it). We are, however, still not satisfied : we would like to objectify the subjective more and more, and it indeed depends upon the method to make progress. Also Unimol / ESF is the starting point of such a step. Evidently, we will not reach an end, also not if we dismiss any form of religious stupor, which is one of the most effective inhibitors of knowledge. We, however, want immediately add : [there is] a biologically important inhibitor, which no thinking person can do entirely without, and which, if right-thinkingly administered corresponding to the general state of knowledge, does not prematurely subject our mind (and also its somatic main equivalent, the central nervous system) to the unprotecting nudity of boundless loneliness. Here one can do too little or too much good. It seems as if practically statistically the right measure has been kept. Who is actually doing too much good, personally will not damage progress in science, because he would, in doing so, hardly have enriched it.