Читать книгу THE POWER OF MIND - William Walker Atkinson - Страница 40

Table of Content

Treating of these three operations of the mind, which are frequently considered as being the same thing—The differences are pointed out and each term is clearly defined and explained—Remembrance is the word meaning that process of the memory whereby stored impressions come again into the field of consciousness, without an effort of the will, as by association, resemblance, etc.—Recollection is the word used to describe that process of the memory whereby a thing is recalled by an effort of the will—Recognition is that process of memory whereby, when we see or hear a thing, we know that we have seen or heard it before.

THE THREE words forming the title of this chapter are frequently used as meaning practically the same thing. This is particularly true in the case of the first two mentioned words. But each of these words has a definite meaning, and refers to a distinct process of the memory.

Remembrance is the word meaning that process of the memory whereby previously stored impressions come again into the field of consciousness without an effort of the Will, as by association, resemblance, etc. Recollection is the word used to describe that process of the memory whereby a man recalls, by an effort of the Will, some impression previously stored away. Remembrance is apparently automatic in its action, while recollection is an act of volition, and is often accompanied with much effort. Recognition is the word applied to that process of the memory whereby, when we see or hear a thing, we know that we have seen or heard it before. It is a conscious association of the present impression with one had before. It is a re­cognizing—a re­knowing. If we see a thing on two different occasions, and do not “know” it when seen the second time, we do not recognize it, and the memory stores away two different impressions of the thing. If afterwards, we become aware of the identity of the two impressions, they become fused into one impression. Authorities lay down three laws of remembrance, as follows:

1. All impressions have a tendency to revive previous impressions of a similar character; but a previously received impression will not thus be brought again into the field of consciousness, unless it be sufficiently distinct, unless the originally faint impression has been recalled to the consciousness by recollection and strengthened by repeated revivals.

2. An impression received similar to one previously received, if not recognized as being similar, will be stored away as a separate impression. But if the previous impression be recalled at the same time, and recognized as similar, the two impressions will be associated in the memory, and stored away together.

3. When a part of an associated series of impressions is revived, the other parts may be revived if desired with a minimum of effort; and the revival of an impression renders easier the revival of any impression received about the same time, without reference to resemblance.

In considering the first law of remembrance; we must not forget that one man may see a resemblance between things which appear to have no connection or resemblance to a second man. And this difference, of course, is carried out in the application of this law. If the resemblance is not seen or recognized, there is no association in the process of remembering.

The act of remembering is almost altogether a subconscious one and we are not consciously aware of its workings. We may be lost in thought and one subject after another passes before the consciousness, and we do not perceive the connection or association at the time. We can often, however, retrace the steps taken and can see the slight thread of connection between the different subjects of our thought. We may start by considering a table, and end by thinking of some totally different character of thing located at a far distant part of the world.

When we remember a thing it is generally because the association is natural, close and direct. When we are forced to recollect a thing we must use the Will to find connections and associations between a number of things before the missing impression is found. There is scarcely any conscious mentation required in the case of remembrance as compared with the process of recollection. The one is direct, and the other indirect.

We have spoken of the fact that it is most difficult to bring into the field of consciousness an impression but faintly recorded, while it is comparatively easy to so bring forth one that has been clearly and distinctly recorded by means of the attention. But a poor impression may be strengthened by a frequent revival, until it will become nearly or quite, as distinct, and as easy to recall, as one of original clear recording. Impressions received under circumstances of great importance are apt to be clearly recorded, and consequently easily recalled.

We desire to call your attention to an important fact concerning the revival of impressions, and the consequent strengthening of the original impressions by the revival. It is the fact that the gist of the whole strengthening process lies in the conscious revival of the original impression, the holding of it before the field of consciousness by the attention, and the sending it back to the storehouse strengthened by the new amount of attention bestowed upon it. The conscious revival of a previous impression, and the new attention given it, is worth much more than the repeated viewing of the object originally causing the impression, at least so far as that particular impression is concerned. Of course a repeated view of the object will probably bring to light details which were not included in the first impression. We have spoken of this in our chapter on Eye Perception, and exercises.

In the same way, if, when you see a thing, a past impression is recalled and is thus associated, the old impression becomes a part of the new, and thereafter it is hard to separate them. We have much unavailable unused material in our memories, which might be of the greatest use to us if we had occasion to associate them. Sometimes we take up a new subject of thought, and form a connection and association between scores of disconnected facts which had been lying around loose in our mental storehouse.

Recollection is always accompanied with an effort of the will to find some chain of association which we desire to recall. This process may take but a fraction of a second, as the mind works very rapidly and the chain of association is soon formed. But often it takes some time before we are able to recall the desired thing, and many times we have to acknowledge our inability to bring forth the missing impression, but the orders given will often be taken up by the subconscious mentality and the impression will come into consciousness at some later time, often when we have ceased to think of the desire.

In recalling an impression one has often to recall the circumstances and place of the recording of the desired impression, or what took place just before or just after the fact he desires to recall. The mind instinctively calls upon the strongest faculty to supply the cue to the whole series of impressions.

In considering the matter of recognition, we see that there is that which may be called full recognition, and also another phase which may be termed partial recognition. When we meet a man whom we have previously met, and recognize his appearance, and remember his name, who he is, what he does, etc., we fully recognize him. But when we meet a man whose face we recognize, but whose name we fail to remember, or when we recognize his face, or even recognize his face and remember his name but fail to remember who he is and the circumstances of our former meeting, we have only partially recognized him. We remember hearing of a man who once met a lady whose face he recognized but whose name he could not remember. Falling back on the old expedient he said “Madam, I have forgotten the spelling of your name. Will you kindly tell me just how you spell it?” “Certainly,” said the lady, “I spell it J­o­n­e­s.” When we meet with a person who accosts us by name, and whose face we dimly recognize, but whom we “cannot place,” we may remain in his company for a time, and then suddenly some allusion will give us the missing association and we remember clearly all that we have ever known about the individual.

There is a difference between remembering a thing and recognizing it. How many times have we sought for a thing which we distinctly remembered but which we were unable to find. Shortly after we found the thing in a place that we have looked over several times, and it is impossible that we did not see it. The trouble is that our faculty of recognition was not functioning properly, and although we saw the object we failed to recognize it. This trouble may be largely overcome by first forming a distinct mental image of the thing sought for, in which case we will recognize the object as soon as seen. This will apply to any object no matter how familiar we may be with it, as unless the mental image is sufficiently clear we will not recognize it even though we see it, our memory of it for the moment being merely a memory of name and not of appearance. A man may hunt for his wife in a crowd, and will not find her, although he may be looking her right in the face. His anxiety has driven away the mental image.