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.
11. Never try to find _analytic_ date or number words until you _know
the material facts connected with the date or number_ before you. The
student wishes to fix the date of Voltaire's birth, in 1694. "The
Shaper" and "The Giber" occur to him. If he is ignorant of the facts of
Voltaire's life, he will correlate thus: "_Vol_taire ... (1) ...
volatile ... (2) ... 'fixed' ... (1) ... 'The Shaper' {Th}e {Sh}a{p}e{r}
(1694);" or "Vol_taire_ ... (1) ... tear to pieces ... (1) ... mocking
dissector ... (1) ... {Th}e {G}i{b}e{r} (1694)." If he had known that
Voltaire was a born writer, he would have found the analytic relation in
"Voltaire ... {Th}e {Sh}a{p}e{r} (1694)" or if he had known that he was a
terrible mocker, he would have said: "Voltaire ... {Th}e {G}i{b}e{r}
(1694)." If he wished to fix the date of the discovery of America, he
might think of "{T}e{r}ra{p}i{n}" (a large tide-water turtle, abounding
in Maryland), and correlate thus: "Discovery of America ... (1) ...
Maryland ... (3) ... {T}e{r}ra{p}i{n} (1492)." But if he remembers that
Con. covers all cases of Cause and Effect, Instrument or Means to End,
Person by whom, &c., and if he reflects that this discovery has been a
blessing to the Old as well as the New World, he would say: "Discovery
of America ... (3) {T}{r}ue {B}oo{n} (1492)." Or, if he considers that the
moment America was made known to Europe the whole of the Western
Continent was open to every new-comer, he would find analytic date-words
thus: "Discovery of America ... (3) ... {D}oo{r} o{p}e{n} (1492)." If he
merely wants to fix the fraction 92, he could use the first two
consonants of the name of one of his ships, and say: "Discovery of
America ... {P}i{n}ta (1492)."