One can quite easily experience the singularity or momentaryness of moments/the primary non-process of life.
Take a look at something and than look to something else. When you try to remember the image/constellation you looked at ‚before‘, you will only have a trace of it in your imagination/re-construction. The new moment is there, everything else are traces.
Whether moments are infinitely ’small‘ events/constellations/singularities or finitely sized singularities is for example a difference plurality of physical, a speculative-ontological and a brain-science questions.
The relative is maybe absolutely existing — secondary in a certain view and parallel to the absolute as absolute. The absolute is not relative, it’s primary and at the same ‚time’/parallel it’s parallel to the relative.
In my estimation one can say: The relative is secondary to the absolute. The absolute is primary. But it’s also parallel. Parallelity is primary to any ordering. Which means it’s at the same time primary and not primary. Parallelity is basic and everywhere. And it allows for all other secondary orderings and constructions (like the re-construction of things into ‚primary‘ and ’secondary‘ phenomena etc.) to be existing parallel.
Hypothesis: There are no processes, only patterns and singularities, expressed/impressed as (more or less metaphorically) sounds and resounds.
Is sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy the necessary fundament or ingredient of a society (in distinction to a group-based community)?
In a Pattern-interpretation-construction one could say: Yes.
But patterns are secondary, timeless(ly) nonbasic.
One cannot say that something will be (and therefore is meta-constellatively) necessary.
1) One cannot interpret objectively whether something is necessary within a single constellation for something. There is no causality within a single constellation and causality from one constellation to another is secondary — meaning: interpreted, partial, nonobjective, nonwhole, a reductive and either particularist or subjective structuration. Longer causal constructions (with cause following cause etc.) are contingent stories that resound to more or less beings and are constructed more or less flexible to account for ’new phenomena‘ (myths are one of those causal stories).
2) One cannot extrapolate/determine etc. an interpreted necessity of one constellation towards another constellation.
If, theoretically, one explained everything within/of a constellation. Then one still cannot predict the other constellation, because causality in the pre-dicitve way/use is a pattern interpretation not a deterministic wholeness.
David Hume resounding: One constellation cannot predict the „next“/an other constellation. One can make patterns. They shape our expectations and these expectations resound with our interpretations. A „self“-stabilising but noncomplete and still basically singular pre-diction (foretelling and interpreting along those lines).
There are patterns. And there is always something more/else.