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?