Here, beauty is not described to be in the result of increasing entropy, but in its increase over time. So beauty is not in the state of chaos itself, but reflected in the dynamic movement of the ongoing cosmic dance between phenomena. The results of increasing entropy are also not stated to be exclusively beautiful or good.
It's all just part of the great tantric theater.

Obviously not all increases of entropy are necessarily immediately good.
You can warm yourself up at a nice campfire or you can burn a forest down.

You can learn from other cultures and grow that way by syncretizing skillfully or lose the wisdom of your heritage and identity in the process.

If we take it that everything is the result of entropy, the nature of entropy, containing both the concepts of "beautiful" and "ugly", or of "creation" and "destruction" simultaneously, is equivalent to beauty in the sense that it is complete.

It encompasses the good, the bad, the wholesome and the dirty. It contains masculine and feminine concepts, it contains the light and the dark, it contains the bitter and the sweet, it contains rise and fall. Its beauty is in the in-between state of moderation - moderation being the synthesis stage between definite extremes.

Using the word "beauty" in this context is a means to an end. Distinction is necessary.

But wait, there's more.

B L A S P H E M Y

It is the snake in the tree speaking, not God.

Thinking that some kind of mathematical rationality can fathom the Whole, the entirety of the All, like a watchmaker can understand and manipulate a clockwork, is blasphemous pride.

While the wondrous and perfectly timed workings of the Universe may sometimes feel like clockwork, the Universe is not limited to mechanistic properties.
Living organisms like flowers or complex systems like galaxies have mechanistic characteristics.
At the same time, they're perfectly unobstructed by the limitations of mechanistic understanding.

We're looking at the equivalent of the hierarchical differentiation between
Mind in the Brain vs.
Brain/Body/All in the Mind vs.
Mind within All here.

Which rules which? Wich is superior, which inferior?
Which is the principle, Emptiness-Wisdom, and which is the temporary phenomenon, Appearance-Form? And where do they find their life-creating unity?
(They do in their thermodynamic tantric dance.)

A biologist once told me: You need to stop asking why beautiful phenomena like the marblings on the uppermost petal of rhododendron blossoms occur. Living things appear. If their characteristics do not negate life, they stay around.

In both the biologist and the mechanical engineer example, what's being pointed at is the beauty in all natural phenomena that promote life.

What is evolutionarily useful can be beautiful.

That which is beautiful is always useful, but that which is useful is not always beautiful.


(1/2)

B L A S P H E M Y
(2/2)

It's obvious that most things we call "useful" in everyday terms are purely practical and at the same time ugly. They serve as a single-purpose tool for an increase of productivity only, often without allowing other factors to prosper along in synergy. They don't serve the Muses, they don't inspire, instead, their monomodal inflexibility may even drain us of our energy and life force if we don't have skillful conduct:

Think of train stations. Practical for transportation, yet can be incredibly filthy.
Megacities. Useful in the economical sense, but absolutely life-denying, depressing places.
Killing an animal. Useful for a healthy diet, but creating despair.
All of these serve a purpose.

(Once again, mind that these examples are ugly, and that beauty is in the all-encompassing meta layer of the perfect co-ordination of phenomena that leads to their arising. Beauty and ugliness are both contained in goodness.)

Whether what is useful is also beautiful or not also depends on how we define "useful".
Being "useful" can be an extremely good thing. The big difference in the express quality (beautiful/ugly) of "usefulness" lies in the aim to which something is being useful.
So beauty or ugliness is not only in the tool-ness itself. The purpose it serves is a determining factor as well.

An animal may be slaughtered out of sheer desire to consume its meat or with mercy and gratitude, devoting its life and flesh to the higher purpose of being healthy and strong in order to assist others. It might also include a wish of liberating the animal from an endless cycle of rebirths in the lower realms at the same time.

A desk workspace can be designed to only fulfill the singular purpose of "maximum productivity", or it can be designed to inspire creative processes.
Eventually, the ideal solution is a blend of the two, because playfulness increases effectivity, and because synthesis of different sources of sensory input and using a variety of channels for motoric output enhance the expression of integrated intelligence.

The questions that must be asked are these:
To what avail is an action committed to? Why are the elements of a creation designed the way they are? What is the array of possible purposes?
Is it to the benefit of all? Is it to the benefit of few? Of self only?
Is it to the detriment of many?


T H E E N D T O B E G A I N E D
D E T E R M I N E S
T H E Q U A L I T Y
O F T H E M E A N S .

P R O V A T I O B O N I

In ancient Greek, Beauty is "Ομορφιά"
— Fullness of Form.

Ugliness is "Ασχήμια"
— Absence of Shape.

The absence of good, also known as the privation theory of evil, is a theological and philosophical doctrine that evil, unlike good, is insubstantial, so that thinking of it as an entity is misleading. Instead, evil is rather the absence, or lack, of good.

Ugliness is the absence, the negation of Beauty.
It does not have any substance of its own.

Image: Paolo Girardi

Looking back at this equation, we can conclude:

The beauty of free flowing, unhindered growth can be discovered when the obscurations of stagnation and fixation are shattered with ruthless determination.

C U T T H R O U G H
W I T H O U T
M E R C Y

In the same way, the good can only shine if the evil is shattered,
and the beautiful can only grace our senses if the ugly is recognized as inherently empty.