This essay expresses part of my thoughts regarding my “Doctrine of Radical Separation” that I will be releasing soon. As you know I believe Buddhist techniques and philosophy offer powerful practices that allow one to exist in the modern world more effectively. I define this in the following way: How to be in the world and yet not of it, even in the slightest degree.
A good way to view this would be through the prism of thermodynamics.
As you probably know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the entropic force. A term describing the idea that higher levels of decay and disorder are built into the fabric of the universe and closed system are ultimately subject to these forces. This if course includes us as an energetic system. Our physiology and psychology if one even wishes to engage such a meaningless dichotomy.
The mental models and patterns we use to make sense of a complex world are after only a short while typically, ineffective in granting us optimal freedom of action within a given set of variables. Variables that are constantly reaching higher levels of disorder; we see this in our own civilisation, we see this in our own bodies. We are also existing in the context of civilisational entropy.
Interestingly & also sadly, many of us are defined in our totality (in terms of our internal models and how we interact with the world) by the system itself, which was in turn defined by the sum total of individuals past and present that also lived within it, facing entropic pressures willingly or not through the ages. If the system is in such bad shape and can no longer account for the higher levels disorder around it with it’s own institutions and models; we as citizens, whose personalities are forged by the system should be concerned. One could assume these same psychological and existential models are not enough to contain increasing levels of entropy within and without us.
We all know this of course, instinctually. We see it in the humans around us. Silly models cannot account for what is happening around us and as a result they become subject to complete disorder and decay. Often enough extremely amusingly. Cue furries or Utopianists in their various shades, usually left wing.
As creatures of habit it appears for the most part we only change if we are forced to by externalities. This is usually painful, violent or unpleasant for the majority. Internally we cannot account for the external change, it does not feel good, our models of reality failed. It also means we are subjected to the environmental effect without our consent. Our model failed to account for external disorder.
As a “closed system” we thereby subject ourselves more strongly to entropic force. And we can become stuck as a result of stultified patterns of action as a dogmatic and closed informational system.
In art, it reminds me of the Darren Aronofsky film “Requiem for Dream”. The main character’s mother through her inability to sufficiently model, understand and account for her own internal experiences and external problems – is ultimately destroyed by them. What is truly disturbing about the breakdown is the fact she cannot understand what is happening to her. This is an excellent way to summarise what I am trying to get at. She is a closed informational system and she was being lived by the disorder around her. She was destroyed by it.
Conversely, through recognising that entropic forces are a constant we then can start to live better and in accordance with this reality. With a view to consciously engaging in the balancing act between creation and destruction. Buddhism offers practical exercises where through strong internal reflection and other similar practices, we can in fact physiologically and psychologically breakdown old and outdated models more efficiently. We in fact can realise that almost all about us is illusory and that there is indeed nothing to really fear losing. But more on this later.
I see this then as utilising freedom of action through becoming an open system as opposed to a closed system. An open system better at integrating information and creating new models to account for greater levels of disorder and information in the environment around us. It is that simple.
Yet, modern civilisation makes us overly complex people. We retain all sorts of outdated models, inheritances of the past and the thoughts of old men who lived in a completely different times and context. I often tweet that the men of the present cannot carry the future, and this is precisely what I mean by that. This does not mean to discount all that has been said in the manner of a communist. it means simply to retain information and models and to re-adjust them as needed. Real information will always be valuable.
The key to “being” as an “open system” is to be able to see as clearly as possible this new information and what is of value. Once the observation has been made, one can orient themselves and act according to it. The action determined in full by conscious engagement with the new raw information that was observed.
There must be quality of observation. This requires work. Mahasattiphatana work and other Buddhist modalities are very effective in increasing quality of observation. In fact the philosophical idea of one as an impermanent system and the ability over time to see yourself as this, in in fact an extremely powerful action.
For me, this means that the truly “free individual” is necessarily required to be constantly self-defining in the face of new information. And through being able to self-define, also achieves as much freedom as is possible in this universe. Freedom is in some way then staving off the forces of entropy. Freedom is your own personal rebellion against the way things are. In a noisy system this ability to classify new information effectively into useful self-serving model is difficult.
The ultimate dichotomy we face is closed system vs open system. By utilising true observation and information of an environment in flux, the mind becomes open to constant refinement and this leads to greater degrees of flexibility and freedom of action within an environmental context.
If one were to remain closed and dogmatic only having the ability to integrate new information through outdated models and entrenched patterns, as an isolated system one would subject themselves more completely to entropic forces. In the way I define psychological freedom, this is not it.
This is acting compulsively through models that for the most part one did not even create that probably can’t account for the world as it is, thus it is also not self-defining. Any useful view of the world must take this into account, it cannot merely grasp for the past. It must be defined by a vibrancy of integration and model to account for new disorder.
Power then refers to the efficiency of the ability to self-define. If one is able to observe effectively and also act with a degree high psychological and physiological flexibility in any given set of circumstances, I would say then that this is an expression of power. in a system now that is in the final stages of entropic dissolution, the ability for the individual to self-define and express power will become of paramount importance.
Buddhism and the Sattipatana Sutta then assists us with this in several ways. As per my last essay, we know that meditation allows us to “rewire” our hardware. We know that radical self-introspection allows us to take the hammer to silly notions, or self-defeating ideas, behaviours and models. Whether is was our parents of society or whoever that imposed them onto our neural structure. These practices allow us to become the ultimate observer. As John Boyd said, the ability to observe – classify – model – act, is therefore out most potent weapon against entropic forces.