[MD] Doug Renselle & Language

[Krimel]

[John:]
Here I think there is a two-fold path.  Subjectively, DQ is usually a bad, a
disaster.  We get strongly statically attached to what is.   But
objectively, from a distance or over time, it's seen as good.  A flood
spreads nutrients and volcanoes bring life and minerals to the soil.   It
certainly doesn't seem good to a drowned or burned village.

The MoQ stresses the positive aspects of DQ - takes the objective side of
the debate or dichotomy, because it's plainly GOOD to do so - that is,
interpreting DQ as positive, has a pragmatically useful orientation for the
subject.  Interpreting DQ chaotically, does not.

At least that I can see.

[Krimel]
I think the whole notion of good and bad is relative. Rain might be good for
farmers and bad for picnickers. But the idea that whatever happened in the
past is, if not good then at least OK, goes beyond "illusion" into full
blown "delusion." We accept the past because we have limited options. We
can't change the past but we can change our opinions of it. Given that, the
healthiest option is to paint on a smiley face. We learn not just to live
with it but to like it.

Seeing the world as chaotic and purposeless is difficult. As noted people
recoil from it in horror. I can tell you it was not an easy transition to
make personally but it finally came on like a religious experience a flash
of insight that radically reorganized my entire conceptual continuity. I
don't know if I recommend it. But I don't see any way around it and
eventually I found a way to paint it with happy faces. Shit happens and it
is up to you to decide if it's good shit or bad shit.