Related to other things—although these other things are not manifest as beings. Capability for . . . is not a matter of comportment toward beings. Capability for . . . never passes over into its correlative behaviour because beings as such announce themselves in such and such a way for the animal. But the other things in question do not stand in a mechanical relation to the animal either since, in its capability for . . . , the animal opens itself to what is other in approaching it. That is, the capability for . . . is what intrinsically makes it possible for something other to occasion anything like a capability to produce a specific form of behaviour in the first place, and to maintain the capability as driven in this behaviour. Capability for . . . and thus behaviour itself is open for such occasions, for stimuli, for that which initiates, i.e., disinhibits the capability for . . . in such and such a way in each case. That which the animal's behaviour relates to is such that this behaviour is open to it. This other is taken up into this openness of the animal in a manner that we shall describe as disinhibition [Enthemmung]. Since capability for . . . thoroughly governs the animal's specific manner of being, a being such as the animal, when it comes into relation with something else, can only come upon the sort of entity that 'affects' or initiates the capability in some way. Nothing else can ever penetrate the ring around the animal. Here we are not yet concerned with any particular content whatsoever, but only with the fundamental character of that to which the animal can stand in relation at all.
Yet if the instinctual drives are precisely characterized by their uninhibitedness, then why should the instinctual drive have to be disinhibited in the first place? Should we not rather say that it is the other which the animal comes upon which inhibits the instinctual drive? We speak with a certain legitimacy of the uninhibitedness of instinctual drives when we consider the results of such activity as it were, what these drives drive toward and what they are driven to do, and especially when we also relate these things to our own possible comportment in and toward them-the question of control and so on. But if on the other hand we reflect upon the instinctual drive intrinsically as such—rather than upon the instinctual activity into which it can be released—and consider the instinctual structure itself, then we can see that the instinctual drive precisely possesses an inner tension and charge, a containment and inhibitedness that essentially must be disinhibited before it can pass over into driven activity and thus be 'uninhibited' in the usual, ordinary sense of the word.
That which behaviour as instinctual capability comes upon is always disinhibiting in some way. That which disinhibits in this way, and stands in relation to behaviour only insofar as it is disinhibiting, constantly withdraws [entzieht sich] from behaviour as it were and does so necessarily on account of its own manner of 'showing itself'—if we may talk in such terms at all. Since that which disinhibits behaviour essentially withdraws and eludes it, so too the relation of behaviour to that which occasions it is a not attending to it. No permanence as such is ever attained, nor indeed any change as such. The