HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013569.jpg

As in most systems of authoritarian premises, precise definitions and what
appears to be strict logical continuity, as in discussions of Torah among Orthodox
Jews and Canon Law by Catholic bishops, classical equilibrium thermodynamic
ideas that are borrowed for use out of the context of their origins, risk the calumny
of their physicist practitioners. We have probably already earned more than a little
distain from those quarters with our use of none-minimal or none-maximal but in-
between entropies. This phrase cannot be found in the literature of physics or, as
such, in the writings of communication and information theory. In the modern theory
of nonlinear motion called dynamical systems, in-between entropies can be
generated by chaotic systems that are non-uniform in their rates of separation of
near by points and convergence of far-away points in dynamics that have been
previously described as nonuniformly hyperbolic.

The energies and their transformations that fuel and support karmic escape
from the personality fixations of samsara and accession to unmanifest Divine Life
can occur without the loss of the richness and multiplicity of apparent reality. Big
internal changes without external sign can occur in the arrangements of the
ineffable and mysterious formless silence within which we have associated with
states of high, but not maximal, in-between entropy. For examples, the Indian Saint,
Sri Aurobindo, in the early 20th Century, the Catholic metaphysical anthropologist,
Teilhard de Chardin and currently American pandits (spiritual seekers with
intellectual and academic inclinations) such as Ken Wilber, among many others
over the millennia, direct us toward the goal of Nirvanically changeless emptiness
without the properties of space or time. At the same time, we maintain an astute
and effective yet distantiated appreciation for existential realities. The non-dual
enlightenment of Integral Being or Yoga involves realizing emptiness through the
world of form. There is a way of thinking about and even computing that “nothing
within” and its changes.

As John R. Pierce suggested in the 1981 revision of his book that made the
theorems of the father of communication theory, Claude Shannon, so accessible,
“...if we want to understand information-related entropies, it is perhaps best to clear
our minds of any (physical) ideas associated with the entropy of physics.”

69

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013569