We only see concrete structures

From an organisational complexity perspective, the question who tells what to a next generation is interesting. Necessarily, it seems, the rigid/physical/deterministic structures are the ones that can be identified by a new generation, better than the chaos/plurality of those less rigidly so.

(Often I ask myself: "this new meta insight X I have obtained really enlightening and really should be included as a bumper sticker in, say, education, why is it not, or can it apparently not happen?" This note is a reflection on this situation.)

Obviously there is a system of carrying on abstract, subjective, or less rigidly determined knowledge, and it is the dynamics of culture. But it seems to be a key characteristic of such systems, as it is of the physical world, that the complexity of perspectives and positions, and even those that are quite determined, yet still abstract or intangible or complex, really is outweighed by the simple fact-ness of rigid, concrete, or self recurring things. Fact in case is how we treat the self recurrence of social structures as therefore the proof of the givenness/concreteness of these structures. We have no sense (cognition) of morality, or what is factually logically good, other than that which has been embedded as self recurring patterns; because we only see rigid things, and moral arguments are only rigid by their occurrence, not by their validity.