794. So what mission does this I have? If it is in itself stillness or immobility, what role can it possibly play in the living being's experience of life? Well, we must at this point once again turn to our own sensation of life. We have already established that we sense it as the passage of experiences or movements in and out of this "something", which is inaccessible to sensory perception, and that while passing through this "something" they are also not directly accessible to sensory perception or experience, but are equal to "X" in the innermost centre of our I. But as the energies, that is to say the thoughts, experiences or "movements", are accessible to sensory perception right up to the point at which they disappear into this "X", and similarly are accessible to sensory perception when they emerge from its domain, it becomes clear that this "X" has the ability to "turn" the energies or "movements". But this further strengthens our earlier acknowledgment of the identity of this imperceptible "something" as the absolute "fixed point". For an energy or "movement" can be "turned" only with the help of an absolute "fixed point". It is of course quite correct that we in this material world are able to alter types of energy or movement, but this change in the direction of energies or movements cannot exist without at the same time to some extent neutralising the movements themselves. The energies leave a mutual mark on each other. We express this mark using the terms mentioned earlier: "wear and tear", "erosion", the "tooth of time" and so on. And this "wear and tear" is due solely to the fact that neither of these two energies is completely unchangeable. Each of them constitutes "movement" and is therefore in itself not an absolute "fixed point". They both constitute power and as such cannot avoid in one way or another impeding each other's ability to move. It is the influence of these forces on each other that forms the basis of all forms of transformation, which is in turn the same as "creation". Such conditions of transformation or wear and tear cannot come about as a result of the contact between the "movements" and the I, for the I is in its innermost nature absolute "stillness", which in a way implies that it is absolutely "immaterial". The fact that it is "immaterial" does not mean that it constitutes a "nothing", but that it is, on the contrary, the producer of matter and consequently must come before it. But if it comes before it, it must actually be stated that within a certain area it is in a situation in which matter does not exist. But if, within a certain area, it exists without matter, it can be described only as "immaterial". And it is precisely on this account that it has no other analysis than that "it is", and is therefore inaccessible to sensory perception, just as it is also this circumstance that forms the basis for us having had to express it as "X1".