Chapter 11

We had experience in learning the Series in the first chapter that the application of the Laws of In., Ex., and Con. enable us to memorise those Series in much less time than it would have taken had we not known _how to make use of_ those Laws. Many people could _never_ have committed to memory such Series by mere _rote_ or _repetition_, and not one in a hundred could have learnt to say them backwards by _rote_ alone. Yet my Pupils easily learn them both ways, because Analysis affords the highest possible AID to the Natural Memory. In fact, the _deepest_ and _most abiding_ impression that can be made upon the Natural Memory is by impressing it with _relations_ of In., Ex., or Con.; because these are the Memory-Senses (if the phrase be allowed), these are the Eyes, Ears, Touch, Taste, and Smell of the Memory: and we have only to impress the _Memory_ according to the laws of its own nature and the _Memory_ will RETAIN the impression. This is exactly what my Art does: for I translate every case of Synthesis into an Analytic series by supplying one or more _Memory-intermediates_ that grow out of the "Extremes," each one of which is an instance of In., Ex., or Con.--Thus, every example of Synthesis is a =developed or extended Analysis=. To make this translation from Synthesis into Analysis requires no intellectual ingenuity--no constructive power of imagination--but only a _recall to consciousness_, through In., Ex., or Con., of what we already _know_ about the "Extremes." I call a specimen of developed Analysis a Correlation, because the Intermediates sustain the _direct_, _immediate_, and _specific_ relation of In., Ex., or Con. to the "Extremes" (having nothing in common, in principle or nature, with the old-fashioned Mnemonical "Links," or "Phrases").

1. When is Rec. Analysis used? 2. Rec. Synthesis? 3. How is a revivable connection established? 4. Have you carefully read every question at the bottom of the previous page, and _thought out_ or written out answers to them? 5. Since questions are valuable helps to the learner, will you faithfully read all the questions hereafter in this lesson, and write out or think out the answers thereto? 6. What have the laws of In., Ex., or Con. enabled us to do? 7. Could all people have learned them by rote? 8. What affords the highest possible aid to the natural memory? 9. How are the deepest and most abiding impressions made on the Natural Memory? 10. What are the Memory-Senses?

EXAMPLES OF CORRELATIONS.

Make your own Correlation (different from mine, given below) between each of the following seven pairs of Extremes:

[_In._ may be represented by 1, _Ex._ by 2, and _Con._ by 3]:

1. ANCHOR (1) Sheet Anchor (1) Sheet (1) Bed (1) BOLSTER ---- (3) Capstan (1) Night-cap (3) Pillow (3) ---- ---- (3) Roadstead (1) Bedstead ---- ---- (3) Sea Bed (1) ---- 2. PEN (3) Ink (1) Ink-bottle (1) Smelling-bottle (3) NOSE ---- (1) Pensive (2) Gay (1) Nosegay ---- ---- (3) Wiper (3) ---- 3. SLAIN (3) Battle (3) Joshua (3) MOON ---- (1) Struck-down (1) Moon-struck (1) ---- ---- (3) Fallen (2) Risen (3) ---- 4. TEA (1) Teaspoon (1) Spooney (1) LOVER ---- (3) Sugar (1) Sweet (1) Sweetheart (1) ---- 5. ARROW (3) Tell (3) Apple (3) Cider Mill (1) TREADMILL ---- (3) Flight (3) Arrest (3) Convict (3) ---- 6. BEE (1) Beeswax (1) Sealing-wax (3) Title deeds (3) ATTORNEY ---- (1) Queen Bee (1) Queen's Counsel (3) ---- 7. LASH (1) Eye-lash (1) Glass Eye (1) Substitute (1) VICARIOUS

Children and Adults, who have thoroughly learned Recollective Analysis and practised its exercises, find no difficulty in making Correlations, unless they are so afflicted with Mind-Wandering that they have never _digested_ the impressions they have received, or unless their intellectual operations have been twisted out of the natural order by perversities of early education; but even in these cases the _diligent_ student will be able--usually before these pages are finished--at once to correlate any word whatever to any or all the words in any dictionary. A learned Professor declared that no person unacquainted with astronomy could correlate "Moon" to "Omnibus." He did it thus: MOON--(3) Gibbous [one of the phases of the Moon]--(1) "Bus"--(1) OMNIBUS. I asked a pupil then present--a girl nine years old--to connect them. She promptly replied, "MOON--(1) Honey-moon--(3) Kissing--(1) Buss--(1) OMNIBUS." A moment after, she gave another: "MOON--(1) Full Moon--(1) 'Full inside'--(3) OMNIBUS." Once more: "MOON--(1) Moonlight--(1) Lightning--(3) 'Conductor'--(3) OMNIBUS." Another pupil imagined it would be _impossible_ to correlate the following _letters_ of the alphabet to _words_ beginning with the same letters, as "A" to "Anchor," "B" to "Bull," "C" to "Cab," "D" to "Doge,"--as well as "Cooley" to "The." There are, however, no words which my Pupils cannot soon learn to correlate together with the greatest readiness, as:

"A" (1) First Letter (1) First Mate (3) Ship (3) "ANCHOR" " (1) Aviary (3) Bird (3) Flew (1) Fluke (1) ---- "B" (1) Bee (3) Sting (1) Sharp Pain (1) Sharp Horns (1) "BULL" " (1) Below (1) Bellow (3) ---- "C" (1) Sea (3) Ocean Steamer (1) Cabin (1) "CAB" "D" (1) "D.D." (1) Clerical Title (1) Venetian Title (1) "DOGE" "COOLEY" (1) Coolly Articulated (1) Definite Article (1) "THE"

1. What must we do in order to make the memory retain the impression? 2. Does my Art do this? 3. Into what do I translate every case of Synthesis? 4. What does it then become? 5. What is a correlation? 6. Are correlations difficult to make?

All possible cases to be memorised can be reduced to (1) ISOLATED FACTS, where each fact is correlated to some fact in its surroundings through which you must think as the _Best Known_, in order to recall it--many instances will be given in this lesson:--or, (2) SERIAL FACTS, which must be remembered in the _exact order_ in which they were presented to the mind--illustrated by many examples in this Lesson.

NEVER FORGET that this System serves two distinct purposes: (1) That it is a Device for memorising any Isolated Fact or Serial Facts by means of mere Analysis, otherwise called Instantaneous Assimilation or memorised Correlations, as well as by other means. (2) And that by memorising and repeating for a considerable period Analytic Series, and especially by _making_ and _memorising_ one's own Correlations, it is an unequalled system of Memory-TRAINING. Let the ambitious Pupil =learn as many examples as I give in the lessons in order to so strengthen his natural memory that he will no longer have to use the _device_ for memorising, his natural memory permanently retaining all he desires to remember=. This result comes only to those who carry out ALL the directions with genuine alacrity--not shirking one of them.

1. Do all persons find them easy? 2. What persons do not? 3. Can such persons become expert in making them? 4. How? 5. Make an original correlation of your own between these extremes. 6. To what may all possible cases to be remembered be reduced? 7. What are Isolated facts? 8. What two distinct purposes does my system serve?

ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS COMPARED.

It is sometimes asked, cannot "Analysis" cement together unconnected "Extremes"? This question implies a contradiction of terms. I reply, "Yes, by _accident_, and by accident only."

Analysis is _declaratory_--Synthesis is _constructive_. Analysis _discovers_ and _describes_ the relations actually existing--Synthesis applies connecting intermediates where no relations previously existed, and then Analysis characterizes the relations introduced by the cementing intermediates.

Even in the First Exercises the Series are Synthetic. Every pair of words of which such Series consists exemplifies the relations either of Inclusion, Exclusion, or Concurrence. I used to call that Lesson Recollective Analysis, because in it the pupil is engaged in familiarising himself with those Laws of Assimilation, and in _discovering_ and _declaring_ the character of the relations between the words of such Synthetic Series. He commits to memory such a series by _thinking_ of the relations between the words. A minor object is to memorise the Series--but a greater and higher object never lost sight of in these Lessons is to train the Memory and Attention. And let the pupil clearly notice _how_ this training comes about. Merely running over a Series--two words at a time--without discriminating the _kind_ and _quality_ of the relations between the words--hoping that the mind unpractised in the Laws of Assimilation will intuitively feel those relations, constitutes no training of the Memory. Such reading neither strengthens the old power nor develops any new power. It is a blind act of unconscious absorption, however little be absorbed. But if the mind _acts_ in such cases and _tries to find_ and _characterise_ the relations, then the appreciation of the relations of In., Ex., and Con., is quickened and invigorated and becomes in time so intensified that those relations are thereafter almost automatically felt, and the impression they make on the Memory, henceforth, is the most vivid possible.

1. To whom only does this result come? 2. What question is frequently asked? 3. What is the reply? 4. Is analysis declaratory? 5. If so, why? 6. Is Synthesis constructive? 7. If so, explain why? 8. Why is the first lesson called Rec. Analysis?

Every Correlation is a Synthetic Series. It can be and should _always_ be analyzed, but Analysis never makes a Correlation. That is the function of Synthesis. Since "extremes" are words with no relation between them, Analysis cannot find what does not exist. But _accident_ sometimes makes a _spelling_ or _letter_ relation between the "Extremes," and then Analysis can memorise these "extremes" by means of such accidental relations. To illustrate:--

A physician was troubled to remember on which side of the heart are the "mitral valves." As they are on the left side of the heart, he might have noticed that "mitral" ends with the letter "l," and that the word "left" begins with the letter "l"--as "l" belongs to both of these words, here would be a case of analysis. Such a device, however, could never be erected into a rule, for it is founded on accident only, and cannot be used in all cases. How much more vivid to many persons in this example is a Correlation, thus: "_Mitral valves_ ... mitred Abbots ... none left ... _left_."

To remember which of the University crews wears _dark_ blue and which _light_, we can note that the vowel "I" belongs alike to Cambridge and "Light" and is absent from Oxford and "Dark."

Take a case in Trigonometry--a _Complement_ is what remains after subtracting an angle from _one_ right-angle. Take 60 degrees from 90 degrees, and we have the complement 30 degrees--a _Supplement_ is what remains after subtracting an angle from two right-angles. Take 120 degrees from 180 degrees and we have the supplement 60 degrees. How to remember that "Complement" relates to one right-angle, and "Supplement" relates to two right-angles, is a difficulty for a poor memory. Looking at the accidents of the subject, we see that Supplement and two right-angles have a relation in this, that Supplement begins with S and two begins with _T_. S ... T. Hence we must remember that Supplement relates to _T_wo right-angles, and, of course, the word Complement to one right-angle.

Or to use the Synthetic Method: "_Complement_ (compliment) ... praise bestowed ... prize-winner ... won ... _one right-angle_" (_Complement_ completes right-angle ... _one_ ... _right-angle_) or "_Supplement_ ... supple ... bend double ... 'two double' ... _two right-angles_" (_Supplement_ ... added to ... more than one right-angle ... _two right-angles_).

I could give many other illustrations of the narrow scope of this Method of Accidents, though _genuine within that scope_, and how, in _all_ cases, by the Synthetic Method we can find in the facts _to be remembered_ the means of their recollection. One case more: In regard to memorising the statement that "the Posterior Nerve of the Spinal Column is Sensory, and the Anterior Nerve is Motor," using this Method of Accidents, "You observe that Posterior and Sensory go together, and that Anterior and Motor go together. The initial letters of Posterior and Sensory are P and S, and the initial letters of Anterior and Motor are A and M. By considering that A and M are in the upper part of the Alphabet and P and S are in the lower part of it, you will be sure to remember that Anterior is associated with Motor and Posterior with Sensory." I admit that the _first time_ one hears this elaborate method applied the novelty of the principle of it might make an impression; but, after that, the method would probably fail from its lengthy exposition; because it is difficult to retain the _steps of an argument_ in a weak Memory and therefore such a method cannot certainly act as a _Means for Aiding_ the Memory. How do I manage this case? By correlating Posterior to Sensory, thus: _Posterior_ ... Post-Mortem ... Insensible ... _Sensory_; or Anterior to Motor, thus: _Anterior_ ... Ant ... disturbed anthill ... commotion ... _Motor_; or _Anterior_ ... antediluvian ... rush of water ... water-power ... _Motor_. In uniting the two unconnected "Extremes" together by means of a _developed Analysis memorised_, the Natural Memory is aided in a very high degree.

1. What is every correlation? 2. Does Analysis ever make a correlation? 3. Why would not "A" make a good In. by sound with "Anchor" on preceding page? 4. Is the method of remembering by accidental coincidences always reliable? 5. If not, why? 6. Are there cases where it cannot be used? 7. Make an original correlation between "Mitral valves" and "left." 8. How does the accidental coincidence in connection with the University crews compare with Synthesis? 9. Does this method make an impression on the novice at first? 10. Does the novice adhere to it? 11. Why?

BY MEMORISING a Correlation, you so unite the two EXTREMES in memory, that you need not afterwards _recall the intermediates_. The intermediates drop out of the memory by what Prof. E. W. Scripture, Psychologist, of Yale University, calls the Law of Obliteration.

1. Why does the method fail? 2. Is it difficult to retain the steps of an argument in the natural memory? 3. Can you give any instances in your own experience where Analysis has helped you to cement Extremes together? 4. Can such a method act as a means for aiding the memory? 5. How would I manage the case spoken of?

HOW TO MEMORISE A CORRELATION.

To memorise a Correlation you must _at first_, if your _Natural Memory be weak_, repeat from _memory_ the intermediates forwards and backwards, as:--ANCHOR ... _sheet-anchor_ ... _sheet_ ... _bed_ ... BOLSTER--BOLSTER ... _bed_ ... _sheet_ ... _sheet-anchor_ ... ANCHOR, at least three times each way. These six repetitions from memory, three forward and three back, are only required _at first_. In a short time you will infallibly remember every Correlation _you make_; at last, the memory will become so strong, that you will no longer have to make Correlations at all. After you have repeated the Correlation, then repeat the two extremes, thus--"Anchor" ... "Bolster." "Bolster" ... "Anchor." "Bolster" ... "Anchor." "Anchor" ... "Bolster."

Nothing else is so easy to memorise as a Correlation, for a Correlation is not a "mental picture" or "story"--it is neither a proposition, sentence or phrase. It has no rhetorical, grammatical, argumentative or _imaginative_ character. It is simply an elemental primordial Psychological Sequence of Ideas in which one includes another, excludes another, or in which one idea has been so often or so vividly united with another in past experience that the two are inseparably connected in memory--and a little practice in making and _memorising_ these Correlations soon makes it _impossible_ to forget them.

1. What is the result of uniting two unconnected "Extremes" by means of a developed Analysis? 2. What are the first steps in memorising a correlation? 3. How long are these repetitions required? 4. What will be the result in a short time? 5. What will be the final result? 6. Are correlations easy to remember? 7. What is the result of making and memorising them? 8. When does the most vivid concurrence take place?

ASSIMILATIVE ASSOCIATION AND MEMORY.

Probably no psychological mistake was ever fraught with greater injury to the cause of public or self-education than the too prevalent opinion amongst teachers generally that "physiological retentiveness" is the memory's sole reliance _in all stages of life_. It is nearly the sole reliance in infancy, and a partial reliance in youth. But when an accumulation of experiences and a fair command of language have been gained, new acquisitions are henceforward principally made by _the affiliation_ of one idea upon or with another or _the making of associations between ideas already established_.

And, if this be so, then memory must be very greatly improvable, since no mental power is susceptible of so much improvement as assimilative association.

A good memory, whether natural or acquired, belongs to quick and vivid _associability_ and _revivability_ rather than to mere inherent and perpetual physiological _record making_.

After a certain number of experiences the child learns the appearance of a square. All his future experiences, however varied, of squares become affiliated upon, or connected with the record of this original square. If each new square had to be separately impressed on the brain as a distinct and independent physiological record, it would take as much time and trouble to learn every new square as it did to learn the first square. But the _instant_ recognition of every square after learning the first one shows that the old brain record is used in the case of each new experience of squares or that the new square is interpreted by the old or original record through the Laws of Association. Again: Taking the prefixes _com._, _de._, _im._, _op._, _re._, _sup._, &c., which are used in thousands of cases, and the suffixes _ment_, _sion_, _ible_, _ibility_, &c., also used in thousands of words, and using these in connexion with the root word "Press" we have compress, depress, impress, oppress, repress, suppress, and also compressible, depression, re-impress, suppression, impressment, &c.

Must a new physiological record be made for each form of the sixty or more words of which Press constitutes the base, and must a new record be also made for each of the prefixes and suffixes in the thousands of combinations in which they occur? No one believes any such absurdity.

If space permitted it would be easy to offer additional considerations tending to show that after infancy and early youth new acquisitions are mainly made by combinations and recombinations of ideas already possessed, and not by new and independent records physiologically reimpressed on each occasion.

RULES FOR MAKING CORRELATIONS.

1. Never make a correlation except in conformity to In., Ex., and Con. Carelessness here is fatal to success.

2. When the pupil reads a correlation of mine, he should indicate the relations between the words by writing in the figures 1, 2, or 3, and he should pursue the same course with his own correlations.

3. Ofttimes "extremes" are in different planes of thought, so occasionally three intermediates are necessary to cement them; two are often required; but after considerable practice in making correlations one usually suffices.

1. What is fatal to success in making correlations? 2. What do the figures 1, 2, and 3 indicate in Rule 2? 3. How many intermediates should there be?

4. A correlation is a _successive advance_, and an intermediate must not refer back to any except its _immediate_ antecedent, never to its second or third antecedent. A pupil wrote:--_Short steps_ ... stepson ... real son ... more a son ... _Morrison_. Here, "more a son" refers to the comparison between "real son" and "stepson," but the latter is the second antecedent so the correlation is a defective one. He might have said: _Short steps_ ... _stepson_ ... _Morrison_.

5. A word may be used twice but never three times. _Pen_ ... pensive ... gay ... nosegay ... _Nose_. Here "gay" is properly used twice, and after that, it is dropped and you can go on with the rest of the word, to wit, _nose_.

6. A compound phrase including a verb is rarely allowable, since the intermediates must be the simplest elements, either sensations or perceptions [relations among sensations] or abstractions [relations among relations], or one of these with either of the others, always exemplifying either In., Ex., or Con.

7. My correlations are good for me, but they may not be so vivid to others, especially where the concurrences are used. To fix the date of Magna Charta (1215), the pupil could memorise this Correlation--MAGNA CHARTA ... King John ... Jew's teeth ... DENTAL. But if the pupil did not know _before_ that King John had granted that charter, and if he did not also know the story about the extraction of the Jew's teeth to make him pay the royal exaction, there would be no concurrence as to the first word and second, or second and third, and if he learned the Correlation it would be by mere repetition without aid from Analysis. In such a case he would make and memorise his own Correlation, perhaps thus: MAGNA CHARTA ... magnify ... diminish ... DWINDLE. When a pupil makes his own Correlations, every concurrence he uses is a _real_ concurrence to him, and so with his Ins. and Exs. This is a decisive reason why the Pupil should merely look upon my Correlations as models, but make and memorise his _own_ Correlations in all cases, as being more vivid to _him_ and, therefore, more certainly remembered, as well as more effectively strengthening the Memory in both its Stages.

8. Vivid Ins. by _meaning_ are better than Ins. by S. (the latter when used, should be as perfect as possible). EAR ... EEL makes a weak In. by S. to some persons, but it would make a much more vivid first impression to most persons to deal with them in this way: EAR ... (w)ring ... twist ... wriggle ... EEL. But "Bivou_ac_ ... _aq_ueduct" is a perfect In. by S. as to the last syllable of the former and the first syllable of the latter, since those syllables are pronounced exactly alike. We may connect Bivouac to Rain thus: "_Bivouac_ ... aqueduct ... flowing water ... falling water ... RAIN."

9. _Never_--in the early stages of the study of the System--make a _second_ Correlation until you have _memorised the first_.

10. Although _making_ and _memorising_ Correlations serves the useful purpose of fixing specific facts in the memory, yet the MAIN OBJECT in making and memorising Correlations is to develop the latent power of the Natural Memory to such a degree that all facts are hereafter remembered without the aid of conscious Correlations.