Another point to how entropy overlaps with contemporary ethics; it sees the increase of quality in ethics as equivalent to the scope of people (groups) it includes/caters to. Of course, if the defining characteristic of these groups is that they are disordered (entropic) than their morality is always tending towards a chaotic superstructure, which is why these same advocates tend to be leftist anarchists or something adjacent. Interesting work as usual Gene!
Great article. Science (specifically physics, as you highlight) is the latest way for small minds to think big thoughts (that are erroneous). Everyone wants to be a hero, even those too afraid to leave the nest of common assumptions.
To me, a pseudo-intellectual is someone who is great at quoting other's ideas to make their point instead of being able to make their point themselves, with basic language. In coding as well as writing, simple elegance beats forced-complexity every time.
Looking forward to seeing the architecture of the new world you seem intent on building. But the tearing down of falsities is entertaining as well--keep it up!
I find a lot of conceptual use for entropy in considering features of society and politics. But I don't employ the term "entropy" as any sort of a good thing, or as some ultimate end state (i.e., the "appeal to the heat death of Universe", the axiom embraced by materialists as the final triumph of cosmic meaninglessness.) Hell no.
I view the assent to entropy as capitulation. It's what we're here to resist, to fight. Entropy is the end product of Inertia. It's what happens to a body that doesn't exercise, and a mind that doesn't engage with challenges. It's the end state of a society with no standards of conduct. Entropy is something to guard against. Entropy is a temptation, because it requires no maintenance. Inertia is so easy.
In esthetics, entropy manifests as the valorization of decadence. And also the elevation of critique over creation. It's become axiomatic in much modern arts criticism to disdain wholesomeness and straightforward ideals of beauty in visual art as sentimental "kitsch"- while praising exemplars of the Transgressive, like Paul McCarthy, whose sculptures appear to me to exist solely as his expression of contempt for anyone repulsed by them.
In the realm of social organization and politics, it comes in two forms: excessive collectivism, as manifested in institutions that abandon their purpose in order to accumulate power for their own self-perpetuation, with the eventual result of inertial Stasis (ex, the Soviet Union); and excessive individualism, which pursues personal gratification through the perpetual quest for increasing power and unending material accumulation at the expense of all "externalities" that might impede private ends and ever more grandiose ambitions, gathering increasing inertial momentum until the wheels come off of the solipsistic vision (ex. Howard Hughes.)
There's always that yin in the yang, though: Individualist egos seeking to exercise sovereign power within structures intended to serve common purpose; private enterprises that require unquestioning loyalty and submission from the other humans enlisted to serve the aims of the individual pursuing their own personal vision of wealth and power.
While I agree with the main point of the article and I hate New Age nonsense, I think what some people are expressing is a real principle. Order exists but in human affairs you have to intentionally produce it. Any building, car, machine, person, organization, etc. is always going to break down or get worse over time without maintenance, due to the natural forces of erosion, corrosion, damage, scarcity, aging, accidents and disasters, disease, violence, and so on. No empire lasts forever, whether Alexander's, the Romans, the Mongols, the Ottomans, etc. they all eventually break apart politically and socially.
It's not nihilism, it's a recognition that if we're not careful we can lose the order that we have, and that we need to create order. "Entropy" is just a convenient word to sum all of this up even if it's not technically identical to the scientific concept. "Regression toward the mean" and "path of least resistance" also see use for similar reasons, they express a tendency in behavior comparable to tendencies in statistics or physics.
I've also heard similar speculation (allegedly) by scientists themselves who felt that life seemingly getting more complex over time was an issue for thermodynamics, but they resolved it by explaining that life is just a way of ultimately generating more entropy/heat in the long term. I think that's silly but it does show that scientists also generalize about it.
Another point to how entropy overlaps with contemporary ethics; it sees the increase of quality in ethics as equivalent to the scope of people (groups) it includes/caters to. Of course, if the defining characteristic of these groups is that they are disordered (entropic) than their morality is always tending towards a chaotic superstructure, which is why these same advocates tend to be leftist anarchists or something adjacent. Interesting work as usual Gene!
Great article. Science (specifically physics, as you highlight) is the latest way for small minds to think big thoughts (that are erroneous). Everyone wants to be a hero, even those too afraid to leave the nest of common assumptions.
To me, a pseudo-intellectual is someone who is great at quoting other's ideas to make their point instead of being able to make their point themselves, with basic language. In coding as well as writing, simple elegance beats forced-complexity every time.
Looking forward to seeing the architecture of the new world you seem intent on building. But the tearing down of falsities is entertaining as well--keep it up!
I appreciate the enthusiasm. Thank you.
I find a lot of conceptual use for entropy in considering features of society and politics. But I don't employ the term "entropy" as any sort of a good thing, or as some ultimate end state (i.e., the "appeal to the heat death of Universe", the axiom embraced by materialists as the final triumph of cosmic meaninglessness.) Hell no.
I view the assent to entropy as capitulation. It's what we're here to resist, to fight. Entropy is the end product of Inertia. It's what happens to a body that doesn't exercise, and a mind that doesn't engage with challenges. It's the end state of a society with no standards of conduct. Entropy is something to guard against. Entropy is a temptation, because it requires no maintenance. Inertia is so easy.
In esthetics, entropy manifests as the valorization of decadence. And also the elevation of critique over creation. It's become axiomatic in much modern arts criticism to disdain wholesomeness and straightforward ideals of beauty in visual art as sentimental "kitsch"- while praising exemplars of the Transgressive, like Paul McCarthy, whose sculptures appear to me to exist solely as his expression of contempt for anyone repulsed by them.
In the realm of social organization and politics, it comes in two forms: excessive collectivism, as manifested in institutions that abandon their purpose in order to accumulate power for their own self-perpetuation, with the eventual result of inertial Stasis (ex, the Soviet Union); and excessive individualism, which pursues personal gratification through the perpetual quest for increasing power and unending material accumulation at the expense of all "externalities" that might impede private ends and ever more grandiose ambitions, gathering increasing inertial momentum until the wheels come off of the solipsistic vision (ex. Howard Hughes.)
There's always that yin in the yang, though: Individualist egos seeking to exercise sovereign power within structures intended to serve common purpose; private enterprises that require unquestioning loyalty and submission from the other humans enlisted to serve the aims of the individual pursuing their own personal vision of wealth and power.
While I agree with the main point of the article and I hate New Age nonsense, I think what some people are expressing is a real principle. Order exists but in human affairs you have to intentionally produce it. Any building, car, machine, person, organization, etc. is always going to break down or get worse over time without maintenance, due to the natural forces of erosion, corrosion, damage, scarcity, aging, accidents and disasters, disease, violence, and so on. No empire lasts forever, whether Alexander's, the Romans, the Mongols, the Ottomans, etc. they all eventually break apart politically and socially.
It's not nihilism, it's a recognition that if we're not careful we can lose the order that we have, and that we need to create order. "Entropy" is just a convenient word to sum all of this up even if it's not technically identical to the scientific concept. "Regression toward the mean" and "path of least resistance" also see use for similar reasons, they express a tendency in behavior comparable to tendencies in statistics or physics.
I've also heard similar speculation (allegedly) by scientists themselves who felt that life seemingly getting more complex over time was an issue for thermodynamics, but they resolved it by explaining that life is just a way of ultimately generating more entropy/heat in the long term. I think that's silly but it does show that scientists also generalize about it.