Chaos destroys the world and it is an anathema of any rational being.
The defence of chaos offered by Eloi and Saruman seems akin to confusing
riddles with the sole intent of misleading the population of achaea.

Saruman admitted that chaos encompasses destruction of creation.
However, he has struggled to redeem his statement by adding that 'with
destruction comes creation'. This per se is very big paradox.
Destruction is by itself an anti-thesis of construction. How could one
equate the vile act of destruction as a stepping stone to creation is
beyond me.

Granted. Even if chaos is a system whereby it 'destroys the old in order
to usher in the new', one must still note that chaos is not noble. If
chaos instigates destruction, it just wants to destroy for the sake of
destruction. Allow me to exemplify my point. When the Unnameable horror
raped the innocent Maya, he was just satisfying his lust. He was not
interested in spawning a whole new race altogether. And that is the crux
of the issue. Whatever sort of confounded creation, which might have
sprung out from chaos, is by accident not design.

And again, one can also argue that Lord Sartan (no respect meant)'s
so-called 'destruction' of Ashtan sometime back is also a way of
ushering in something new. According to Saruman, anything destructive
would always invariably end up in changes. And that's a good thing, he
reiterated. If that's the case, won't it be a good thing if Lord
Sartan's 'destruction' brought remarkable changes to the Ashtan psyche?
On the contrary, I did not see Ashtan subscribing to this aspect of
Saruman's theory, did I?

Chaos encompass change. However, it does not neccessarily bring about
change. Also, the change which has been brought about might not
neccessarily be welcomed. For one, I do not fancy the hypothetical
scenario of Lord Caspian flooding the lands. Also, that does not
necessarily herald the rise of a new underwater civilisation.

Walter Weltsdown, Bloodsworn

Penned by my hand on the 17th of Lupar, in the year 307 AF.