conscious knowledge through sensual perception. Then does the
peculiarity of the unconscious display itself in the clairvoyance of
which consciousness perceives partly only a faint and dull, and
partly, as in the case of man, a more or less definite echo by way of
sentiment, whereas the instinctive action itself--the carrying out of
the means necessary for the achievement of the unconscious purpose--
falls always more clearly within consciousness, inasmuch as due
performance of what is necessary would be otherwise impossible.
Finally, the clairvoyance makes itself perceived in the concerted
action of several individuals combining to carry out a common but
unconscious purpose.

Up to this point we have encountered clairvoyance as a fact which we
observe but cannot explain, and the reader may say that he prefers to
take his stand here, and be content with regarding instinct simply as
a matter of fact, the explanation of which is at present beyond our
reach. Against this it must be urged, firstly, that clairvoyance is
not confined to instinct, but is found also in man; secondly, that
clairvoyance is by no means present in all instincts, and that
therefore our experience shows us clairvoyance and instinct as two
distinct things--clairvoyance being of great use in explaining
instinct, but instinct serving nothing to explain clairvoyance;
thirdly and lastly, that the clairvoyance of the individual will not
continue to be so incomprehensible to us, but will be perfectly well
explained in the further course of our investigation, while we must
give up all hope of explaining instinct in any other way.

The conception we have thus arrived at enables us to regard instinct
as the innermost kernel, so to speak, of every living being. That
this is actually the case is shown by the instincts of self-