Defining entropy:The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic “force” (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize.
Simply put the second law of thermodynamics states that when there is an imbalance in two states there will be a natural tendency for a balance or new equilibrium to evolve until there is equality. There will be a natural movement from activity towards rest, or non-doing. There is a natural tendency for order to prevail from disorder.
I chose this title to exaggerate the extremes which constitute the difference between order and disorder. The two words ‘motion’ and ‘entropy’ are not equals conceptually and therefore are not adequate extremes because they do not define or belong to the same aspect of reality. When we add the other two words ‘doing’ or ‘being’ we then shift our perception from the concepts of activity or non-activity in time and space to concepts of consciousness based on awareness of subjective or objective experience. When we are in motion we are expending energy. It requires energy for motion. When some object or thought is moving through mind or space there is expense of energy. The word ‘entropy’ means that something which has energy will consume it until its all gone. It can apply to a computer, combustion engine, machine,battery, or physical body.
The actions of ‘doing’ or ‘being’ when used in the context of consciousness are intended to be perceived as ‘states’. It is difficult to discuss these two states without falling into the space-time continuum and the dualistic nature of the mind’s perceptive and analytical apparatus. We describe a state as being either physical or non-physical. We usually don’t make reference to a state as being both physical and spiritual or meta-physical. That’s what I define as dualistic. When we speak of experience or ‘dharma’ we are speaking of ‘phenomenon’ , objects of perception which exist within our minds and are based on representations and images of mind. When we speak of ‘noumenen’ or things-in-themselves we are referring to the substance of an object as subject and object outside of our mind state. It is generally accepted that we cannot ‘know’ this part of reality directly. We can only know this part of reality through the mediation of the mind and physical processing of the brain in an active state of consciousness.
How do machines and physical objects such as the brain which suffer from entropy differ from ‘the state of consciousness’ which are non-material and therefore not subject to motion or entropy?
We know as little about ‘consciousness’ as we do about’ light’ , as we do about ‘soul’, as we do about ‘God’.
We use words like ‘omnipotent’, ‘omnipresent’, and ‘omniscient’ to describe the attributes of God because we can’t in our minds imagine or construct an image of something which is ‘eternal’.
The mind cannot perceive the concept of eternity, some reality which has both no beginning and no end, because the mind is a dualistic construct which analyzes reality from the construct of a continuum in a linear context.
It is impossible for the mind to ‘hold’ the concept of ‘consciousness’, ‘light’, or ‘God’ because these three entities or realities are non-materialistic, non-physical. They are not subject to measure, discrimination, or knowing with our senses.
Once we let go of the attempt to capture the ‘essence’ or ‘substance’ of consciousness we can then be present to it in much the same way that we are present to the light. We are immersed in it yet can’t perceive it with our senses. We can feel the heat from the radiation which is part of the light photons but as we look through space which is ‘lit’ we cannot say that we can see ‘light’. In this way when we say that we are aware or conscious of being aware we are attempting to explain a reality or state of being which is non-physical: consciousness, by using words which can only describe physical or mental states.When we attempt to explain ‘trust’, or ‘faith’, or ‘love’ we make assumptions about relationships and about commitment, yet these words are values of being which are only understood within the context of culture or community.
When we say that we are conscious that we love, believe, or trust; we are making a statement about a state of awareness which cannot be measured or held in our minds. It just exists.When I am still, motionless, meditating, I am in a state of ‘being’. When I am in a state of motion or doing I am still conscious of being however I am ‘stillness’ in ‘motion’. My consciousness holds my esssence in its awareness while being in action and motion. My consciousness holds my essence in its awareness also in my state of being or stilllness.
It is this same consciousness which has ‘essence’ yet which has no physical substance.