Preface 



subconsciousness. I endeavoured to show that only 

 the study of the more complex phenomena would admit 

 of a generalisation ; while a study, however profound, of 

 the elementary phenomena would always remain incapable 

 of leading to any clear view of the whole. I concluded 

 that from the specially philosophic standpoint, the study 

 and comprehension of the higher phenomena alone can 

 be of capital importance. 1 



This statement of methodology has brought on me 

 some lively attacks, especially from M. Boirac.* 



M. Boirac affirms, as Le Dantec does with regard 

 to biological phenomena, that one should study and 

 interpret from the base to the summit, first dealing 

 with elementary phenomena and then with those more 

 and more complex. 



In support of his idea he adduces the following 

 analogy: to seek to understand the higher subconscious 

 phenomena before understanding the elementary ones 

 is as illogical as to seek to understand the phenomenon 

 of globular lightning before grasping elementary electrical 

 principles. 



To this I might reply that it is one thing to study 

 electrical phenomena and even to apply them practically, 

 and quite another to understand the essential nature of 

 electricity. Our understanding of electricity, that is 

 our philosophical comprehension of it, rests, and will 

 continue to rest, on provisional hypotheses until we have 

 understood its most complex manifestations. 



Further, nothing is more easy than to oppose one 

 analogy to another! Here is one which I borrow from 

 J. Loeb : 



1 It is expressly to be noticed, however, that in all matters concerning 

 the subconscious, the elementary and the complex phenomena are equally 

 unexplained. Whichever we take as our point of departure, we proceed 

 from the unknown to the unknown. The Cartesian principle therefore 

 cannot be advanced against our method. 



* Boirac : Annales des Sciences Psychiqttes,' and L'Avenir des tudes 

 Psychiqitfs. 



xvii 



