by David Fleischacker
In the introduction of the book Insight: A Study of Human Understanding Lonergan tells the reader that he is writing from a moving viewpoint.[1] In general, this means that he starts with the more common, descriptive accounts of understanding as found in various fields and then moves forward to more precise formulations and more comprehensive insights into insight as the book moves forward. But in addition to growing insight into insight, there is always a content of every insight, an object in other words, and so one cannot discuss insight without also starting with an object that is understood. It is to this later field of the object that one finds the notion of systematic process.
Systematic process refers to where one finds that a correlation(s), function(s), law(s) governs or rules over nearly all that is taking place in a concrete sequence of events or happenings.[2] Conversely, when we talk about regular and recurrent events or happenings, these are regular or recurrent because these have some kind of law(s), function(s), correlation(s) that is dominating the field.
Laws, functions, correlations are intelligibilities in which terms are related to each other. One can think of an object falling to the earth. As it falls it covers a certain amount of distance in a certain amount of time, and if one varies these as Galileo had done, one could come to discover with him the “law of falling bodies.” Or one can think about mathematics and the correlations of variables in an equation. One variable can be defined in relation to another, X to Y, or even an entire group of variables, A to B and C. Thus, one is speaking of mathematical functions in which the domain of one variable is related to the scope of another, or many others. One can think of how atoms are related by Dalton in terms of masses proportions, or how this grows into the periodic table where the elements are not only distinguished and related but so are the reactive properties of each of the elements with others. One could also think of the correlation in genetics between a gene and a protein that is synthesized, especially in the relation of nucleotides to amino acid sequences. In all these cases, one has correlations, laws, functions. As you may have guessed, I am using these interchangeably, though these might “look” rather different from one field to another.
A correlation, law, function alone however is not a system. It is only when a law or correlation largely controls most of the “events” in a sequence that one is then approaching a system. Thus, the laws of gravitation only become a “system” when one is examining how these laws are the intelligibility of concrete parabolic movements, some of which may form into schemes such as an ellipse or a circle. This is what we see with a planet moving around the sun. Most of us would call that a “system.” At the same time, the law may only govern a movement for a period of time and then other factors enter, as one finds when a ball is falling to the earth, hits the earth, and stops falling. It was systematically falling to the earth but that “systematic falling” stops when it hits the earth (notice though, we would likely not say the same for a leaf, why?).
While a law or correlation is “dominating” the situation, other factors may shift it a bit here or there. A concrete system is never “perfect” in how it follows a law or set of laws, even though the law may govern most of what is taking place. There might be small divergences or random shifts, but on the whole, while the system exists, these are so random that they cancel each other out.
Systems abound. Anywhere we use the term “cycle” is a kind of systematic process. We can think of Kreb’s cycle; the cycles of nitrogen, oxygen, water and other molecules upon earth; seasons of the year; cycles of the moon; and cycles of the ocean currents. And we can find multitudes of cycles in the human world as well. Cycles of eating and sleeping, buying and selling; ordering stock for a store; airplanes purchased by an airline; and fuel for our tractors. In all these cases, a set of “laws” is operative that govern these cycles, and as long as conditions are fulfilled, then the law is active and operative. A systematic process is in place.
However, if one has a scientific mind, or a probing mind into human life and activities, one will see that these “systems” come to raise many questions. Why does the earth vary randomly in its orbit? How is Kreb’s cycle a cycle when it involves so many “random” molecular interactions? Why do economic cycles vary significantly? Why do political “systems” rarely last for more than a few centuries? In other words, one is noticing divergence from law and correlation, and so one must acknowledge in concrete life that even when systems are in place, they do not fully control all the details, especially those of when they begin and when they end.
Where do such questions go? Do we raise them from ignorance of the deeper systems in place? Is the world ultimately systematic? If the world is entirely systematic, does that really mean there is no novelty? No development? Or is there a place for the non-systematic? Or maybe it is not really systematic at all, and we live in an illusion. If there is non-systematic, then to what degree does it rule the world? Is this a law itself, namely a law that there is no law? And if there is both systematic and non-systematic process, are these mutually exclusive such that where one exists the other cannot?
[1] Bernard Lonergan, Insight: A Study of Human Understanding, volume 3 of the Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan (University of Toronto Press, 1992), 17-20.
[2] Insight, 71-72. There are many places where Lonergan refers to systematic processes, especially in relation to non-systematic processes. Here, we are looking at the basic notion of systematic process.