Entropy, a scientific term, is described as disorder and a dispersal of energy, a dispersal of particles which are themselves laden with energy.
Entropy is disorder. If something is not being used to its utmost capacity, it is because there is a sort of disorder in the system. Take, for example, an army. A small but orderly and well-disciplined army can vanquish a large, well-armed but disorderly horde; for order is by itself force, and force can be used to move mountains.
A well disciplined, streamlined and orderly Spartan army could rout a horde of mercenaries reinforced by a motley contingent of forced conscripts under the Persian Empire.
Because order is the property of a perfect system, and since any system works with an aim and a purpose, it follows that to have a clear vision one has first to create order. There is no vision in confusion, but once order is maintained, aim and purpose can easily be established.
If you leave things to their fate, the law of nature decrees that entropy creeps in, i.e. disorderliness prevails and energy is dissipated. But if you make conscious and determined efforts, supplemented by sacrifice and self-effacement, simply to put things in order, the result is that energy is conserved and one can use that energy to change things.
A plant grows, so to speak, through negative entropy. When it dies and wilts, it more or less undergoes entropy, the dissipation and disorderliness of energy that has helped it to grow in the first place.
I have heard some people argue that if there is division and diversity in any organization, which by itself is a sign of democratic health. The opposite, they say, is exclusiveness, intolerance, and autocracy. But division should be a means and not an end. If division is used for the purpose of finding the truth or to strengthen the basis for further understanding and harmony, then it is to be praised. But if division is used to create further divisions and misunderstandings, it must be avoided at all cost.
Unity in diversity should not be confused with diversity in unity, for if the first strives to see harmony in divergence, the second simply exploits the diversity or differences in an already ongoing process of unity.
Some people unnecessarily argue and fight over what is a secondary issues. Some of them remind me of the goat-behind-the-millstone (met’hani) story told in our country. The husband wanted to buy a sheep a week before Easter. The wife agreed. But the husband wanted to tie it behind the millstone. The wife disagreed.
“You can tie it behind the millstone only by stepping over my dead body,” she snarled.
“Well, for your information, I will tie it behind the millstone and nowhere else,” growled the husband.
So the wrangling went on late into the night until the neighbors pleaded with them to stop the row for heaven’s sake. The sheep had not been bought yet, nevertheless it had nearly caused a marital disaster by simply entering their minds as a relevant and urgent issue.
In conclusion I would like to say that instead of bickering about issues that are trivial or of secondary importance, our sole aim, objective and purpose at this point of time in history should be to never kneel down before any hegemony. This should be our primary task. And this can be achieved only when we refrain from dissipating our social and political energy in divisive brawls and squabbling and come together to work in earnest and with a common vision for the good of the world.