To what extent does a procedural (i.e. temporal) experience of cognition, language, culture and technology bias us towards linear problem-solving and reductionist explanation? The aggregate sum of all (multithreaded) organisational heuristics may itself be a non-linear and adaptively dynamic system as a fact but from an individual thread of experience (within that gestalt), planning, problem-solving and the explanation of complexity probabilistically drift towards the simpler (i.e. complicated, not complex) methods of linear explanation. Such descriptions are clearly ascendant in our shared cultural and organisational grammars.
Are we inevitably bound by subjective, narrative psychology to a reflexive theoretical self-definition which leaves non-linearity (along with probability, complexity and entropy) as an effectively unintelligible logical complement to our common or conventional modes of thought, comprehension and explanation? Most organisational “best practices” are methods for dampening the effects of all that persistent chaos and unmanageable complexity endemic to actual (as opposed to ideal) contexts, systems and environments.
In suppressing entropy, we discard the binding property of holistic systems.
Daedelus Kite 
One reply on “Entropy Binds”
I think all our presumed knowledge, conjectures, and theories are approximations of reality in accordance with the Pareto principle (80/20 rule). Such approximations are rational and linear, relatively easy to understand and to act on. However, the 20% ignored by Pareto hides the chaotic infinity of entropic exceptions that would paralyze us were we to attempt to analyze them all. Nice post.
LikeLiked by 1 person