1. Since words have different meanings, we may sometimes find that a
pair of words exemplify all three Laws, as plough and sword. The
relation between them may be In., since both of them are _cutting_
instruments; one cuts and hacks human beings and the other cuts and
turns over the soil. It may be Ex., in a metaphorical sense, as one is
the emblem of peace and the other of war, and it may be Con., as we have
_often thought of them together_ as we read in the Bible of beating
swords into ploughshares.
2. Learning a series of words by heart by thinking of the _Relations_
between them is wholly unlike learning it by _rote_. In the latter case,
three or five words at a time or all ten words are read over from 10 to
20 times. This reading secures scarcely anything more than a _succession
of sights to the eye_ or _sounds to the ear_. No _study_ of the words is
required. The _action_ of the _intellect_ is not invoked. It is the
_mere sensuous_ impression of Eye or Ear or both together that holds the
words together, and thus _many or endless_ repetitions are required to
memorise a series which a _conscious thoughtful use of those Laws_
enables us to learn by _one painstaking_ perusal.
Another way of learning such a series by _rote_, is to limit the
_extent_ of the repetitions. Instead of reading over the entire series
or a large part of it many times, the series is slowly read over once or
several times _by pairs_, only two words at a time, but the method of
_acquirement_ is precisely the same as in the former rote process. Let
us look at this last proceeding in detail. (1) It is usually applied
only where there is a _natural suggestiveness_ between each pair of
words. (2) But no previous study is prescribed in regard to what
_constitutes_ this suggestiveness, nor are the _varieties_ of it set
forth and required to be mastered. (3) But above all, no _study_ of the
_pairs of words themselves_ is insisted upon. On the contrary, all such
study is emphatically deprecated. The mind is not allowed to be
_directed_ to anything in _particular_ in reading over the pairs. It
must be _left_ without a _rudder_ or guide to float wherever it listeth.
It is not to be "interfered with" by our will. What is this but
intellectual dawdling? A method of Vacuity pure and simple--the exact
opposite of Mental Assimilation. (4) If in reading over many times an
entire series, only the ear and eye are mainly affected and the
_intellect is left to wander_, much more must it wander here. In running
over many words, the intellect might be arrested by chance. But here
the series consisting of two words only and all attempt to occupy or
engage the intellect being purposely avoided, and nothing being done to
enchain the attention to the consideration of the meaning or sounds of
the two words, or the _relation_ between them, the intellect wanders
away from want of occupation. If when we wish to retain in our memories
a paragraph of fine sentiment or lucid reasoning, we find our attention
wanders, so it must wander here where only a pair of words is before it,
and we are not only not furnished with any tests or guides or stimulus
or motive for examining the words or for _finding the relation_ between
them, but on the contrary we are forbidden to interfere with the
spontaneous action of the mind. The _intellect might be abolished_ so
far as its _participation_ in such an operation is concerned. What is
absorbed in such a case is absorbed intuitively and blindly. Hence we
see that what is accomplished by these two processes of _rote_ learning
is weak impressions upon the memory and a distinct cultivation of mind
wandering.
This method of _rote_ learning by pairs was invented and first taught by
Thomas Hallworth in New York in 1822. His method was adopted without
acknowledgment by Carl Otto in Germany and Austria, and his followers in
England and America.[A]
[A] These followers make a great boast of learning a series of
suggestive words in pairs and without interfering with the mind's action
in doing so, when they are clearly indebted to Thomas Hallworth for this
inadequate method, yet they never have the grace to acknowledge their
indebtedness.
3. The opposite of these two methods of _rote_ learning is my method,
which injects an _active process_ between each pair of words. Each pair
of words is appraised and dovetailed by the Laws of Memory. And hence
the reader can notice the _fundamental difference_ between all other
methods and mine. My method is to keep the mind in an _assimilating,
absorbing condition when trying to learn_ by making the Intellect stay
with the Senses. In the process of _endless repetition_ or learning by
_rote_ as evinced in the two methods above given, the mind is in a
_passive_ state. But when learning the above series by _my_ method, it
was kept in an _active_ state. The _intellect_ was directed by the will
into certain channels and kept there. It was _searching_ for what was
_in common_ or _different_ between the pairs of words. It was _noting_
points of likeness and classifying them. _This is thinking._ And the
most vivid _First Impressions_ always result from the action of the
_intellect_ upon the sensuous _stimuli_ from ear and eye. _Intellectual
Assimilation_ is a proper name for my methods.
4. The Three Laws are Forms or Modes of Mental Assimilation. But when
used _consciously_ for any length of time, they operate much more
efficaciously than formerly--and they greatly increase the
Impressionability and Revivability--as any student can affirm who
faithfully carries out my instructions, and then his General Memory
becomes largely improved without a conscious use of my method.