Entropy and spiritual growth

In his book The Road Less Travelled, M. Scott Peck interprets evil as pure "entropy"- the natural tendency in all systems towards a reduction in energy over time. However, most of us are not evil but are still subject to an element of entropy. When we fail to apply effort against this entropic force, what Peck defines as plain "laziness", we commit "sin". In contrast, when we resist  entropy, through love,("the will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing our own or another's spititual growth") we grow spiritually. This novel way of representing otherwise rather nebulous phenomena I find rather interesting. Peck is contributing to bridging that increasingly flimsy divide between science and spirituality.
Jung carried off a similar exercise when he compared the relation between the unconscious and the conscious to that of a rhizome and its fledgling sprout, the latter appearing temporarily in the spring, only to die, the rhizome (the unconscious) remaining. "Life has always seemed to me like a plant that lives on its rhizome . Its true life is invisible, hidden in the rhizome. The part that appears above ground lasts only a single summer. Then it withers away, an ephemeral apparition."
Peck, however goes further and suggests that the unconscious is God. He can then suggest that mental illness occurs when the individual's conscious will deviates from that of his unconscious (God). This makes sense to me, since I understand that one needs to be "tuned in" to one's intuition (our subconscious/unconscious) and not be tempted to follow our inner ego-voice. Many of us, by contrast, take that "gut feeling" as meaningless or primitive- I suggest it is the very opposite. The usual pattern is for us to dismiss that initial "gut feeling" or intuition and allow the conscious mind to weave its logical tentacles in a deathly embrace.
Of course God can also be seen as "truth" or reality and as such our aim should be to live "in truth" or "in reality". Hence the oft repeated injunction to live in the here and now- to be truly present. To achieve this state is a continual battle and whether we see it as a struggle against entropy or a fight with our ego- the result is the same. No surprise then to hear the shaman talk of the "path of the warrior", because a spiritual person has to be a peaceful "warrior"

PEAK CIVILISATION

Historians will no doubt ask themselves "when did Western civilisation reach its zenith?" But can we as un-objective participants do the same? Surely there are plenty of signs that social cohesion and harmony are and have broken down in plenty of countries. 
Duane Elgin in his book "Voluntary Simplicity" proposes four stages in the life cycle of civilisations:
  
  Stage 1 - High growth, "Springtime", Era of faith
  Stage 2 - Full blossoming, "Summer", Era of reason
  Stage 3 - Initial decline, "Autumn",  Era of cynicism
  Stage 4 - Breakdown, "Winter", Era of despair


Clearly, different countries will experience this process differently, as will areas within countries depending on a multitude of factors such as economic viability, governance and historical inheritance. Thus it may be easier to reach a conclusion on this question by examining individual states or perhaps regions and defining their likely stage according to the above model.  


As Britain led the way into the industrial era it might appear likely that it would also lead the field as regards the decline of industrialism and the de-civilisation process.Thus one might conclude that the departure of Britain from India in 1947 marked the high tide of British civilisation. Another analysis could propose that Margaret Thatcher's premiership defined the start of Stage 3 of the model. And, although a relatively immature democracy, post-WW2 saw the US overtake Britain as its economy and infrastructure grew and it replaced Britain as the major player on the world stage. If we are looking to define, on a micro-historical level, the equivalent US peak-civilisation moment might be Ronald Reagan's presidency which paralleled Thatcher's reign in Britain.  


But for me, what is most interesting is not academic accuracy in pinpointing the moment in time when our civilisation started its decline. After all, other commentators could equally justifiably suggest that World War I and II marked the turning point into stage 3 or perhaps even the Luddite struggles of the 19th century. Others will debate over the likely start of Stage 4- which, many believe, myself included, we have now moved into. But, of greater interest to me is the challenge that these momentous changes present to those living through them. 


In this regard, one question to ask is whether we have any choice over these changes and the process they represent, or are they, like evolution, a structural feature of our species, over which we have no control. The obvious repost would be that if we have free will then the future is in our hands, not some nebulous "fate". I would suggest that, either way it makes sense to respond constructively.


Thus, as institutions, corporations and governments collapse under the weight of complex bureaucracy and inertia, openings will appear that individuals and communities can exploit. Already, we see examples of saprophytic activities exploiting the waste and excess inherent in the consumer culture- people living off the waste food of supermarkets; others scavenging materials for re-use. I myself have often grasped these opportunities.


Nevertheless, I would suggest that there is also merit in helping lay the foundations to a new order by developing "parallel communities". Many of the building blocks for these already exist- eco-villages, alternative currencies, the Freeman movement, alternative media and the many spiritual communities. Perhaps the biggest challenge for this "parallel" approach is that of disengagement from the dominant economic model. This is vital if the destructive economic juggernaut is to be starved of oxygen before it chokes us