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 character 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, where 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, then it 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 rift and misunderstanding, 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.
What are the problems on which the opposition do not see eye to eye? They are mostly secondary issues. Some of them remind me of the goat-behind-the-millstone (met’han) story told in our society. The husband wanted to buy a sheep a week before Easter. The wife was happy. 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. 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 matter.
It is also very sad to hear people talk about the wisdom of holding national conventions or conferences in this country or in that country. Well, it is not the country that hosts these conventions that one should worry about, but the hearts and minds that host such national gatherings. With a pure and unstained heart, with a clear and honest mind, with a unified and strong vision, one can hold conferences anywhere and under any circumstance. It is not the place or time, but the intention and the aim that counts!
Furthermore, some people getting frenetic about religion are eager to bring it as an issue for discussion in large social or political gatherings. I am not against free discussion or brainstorming in order to arrive at an understanding, but to make such issues a cause for antagonism, splitting and division is not acceptable.
Well, for your information, countries in many parts of the world are plunged into brawls mainly for allowing foreign powers meddle on their national matters and letting religious and tribal differences define their purpose of struggle. Nonetheless, a handful of other countries have achieved their goals and reshaped their future without a mark of religion or any other differences stamped on their forehead.
If there is harmony in a country, if the principles of human rights are stipulated clearly, and if there is rule of law, what reason do people have to bring up religion and other secondary issues to sabotage a struggle? If the discussion is genuine and sincere so much the better, but if it is conducted with a hidden agenda then it is a disaster.
A secular state with all the precepts of respect for basic human rights is what the people need in order to lead their lives in peace and harmony. In such a country, the questions related to religion or the freedom of worship become redundant, for all these are but part of the basic principles of human rights which safeguard and assure the security, progress, the wellbeing and prosperity of the citizens.
If despite such a future guarantee, a political organization still tries to bring up religion as an urgent issue to be discussed in political or social gatherings, then that party is simply politicizing religion. And a politicized religion is a dangerous religion. It refuses to listen to reason and is prone to lead a country to its destruction.
When I say this, I am not belittling the role that religion plays in the lives of the masses. What I am saying is that the issue of religion is already addressed the moment the state adopts the principles of democracy and universal human rights.
In conclusion I would like to say that 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.