We create and use structures in order to act.
Structures enable action.
Structures also inhibit action.
Example 1. A house is a structure that allows us a high level of freedom within its walls, while simultaneously isolating us from the exterior.
Example 2. Imagine a discussion between a human citizen of a corrupt country on Earth, who is trying to explain their political system to a friendly alien from a more anarchic planet. The human realises that there is enough shared experience between the two interlocutors that a structure of meaning, a metaphor may be possible and help to communicate a point.
Alien - "If the citizens of the country own an asset publicly that is beneficial, how could they possibly allow it to be destroyed? On my planet this would never happen"
Human - "Imagine someone has a pet, which they love very much. The pet provides comfort and some measure of security to the owner, which is reciprocated by the owner. The pet-owner relationship is stable".
Alien - "Yes, this happens on my planet"
Human - "But the owner of the pet begins a new romantic relationship. The new person doesn't like the pet but can't directly show this. Instead they treat the pet badly in secret, forcing the pet to go hungry. As a result the pet's behaviour changes. The relationship between the pet and the owner becomes unstable. Eventually the owner allows the pet to be sold because the pet appears irretrievably different and is negatively impacting the owner's quality of life. In this metaphor, the owner represents the general population, the pet is the National Health Service, and the other person is the corrupt political party".
Alien - "Ah, now I think I understand more about how this corruption works. So you're also saying that people on your planet are also generally very naïve? Any decent person would immediately realise the causal links in the metaphor and the political system."
Human - "..."
In the above example, the meaning structures of the metaphor within the example (and the example itself) have enabled understanding, but they have done so imperfectly and created a new hurdle to overcome. This highlights a a paradox inherent in language itself, meaning is at once revealed and obscured.
Ultimately the paradox of structure may be resolved through awareness of it. The structure of foam on the tide is no more or less fundamental than the sea, it simply is, was, will be.
Please permit me to leave you with 3 questions. Does the paradox of structure apply only to structures intended and created by consciousness which we would commonly categorise as "artificial"? Or does it apply equally to "natural" structures arising throughout the universe? Is the distinction between the two categories ultimately meaningful?