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.