Dangerous Abstractions dangerous abstractions, ideas that have been lifted out of context and treated as if they were true everywhere and always, can break continuity. We need abstractions. "Justice," "number," "cause"—these words let us think across many cases. But when we forget where they came from and what they depend on, we can use them to justify harm. We can say "It is the law" when the law is wrong. We can say "It is natural" when we have only seen one way of living. The abstraction becomes a weapon. It stops inquiry. First, we have a useful idea. It worked in some situations. Then we stretch it. We apply it everywhere. We stop checking whether it still fits. We treat it as sacred. That is when the abstraction becomes dangerous. It no longer connects to observation and correction. It floats. It blocks the way back to "How do we know? How could we be wrong?" So part of continuity is keeping abstractions tied to the ground. We remind ourselves where they came from. We ask: In what conditions does this hold? What would count as a counter-example? When we pass knowledge on, we can pass it on as dogma—"This is just true"—or as a tool—"This works when such-and-such; check before you use it." The second keeps the chain healthy. The first can break it. What is an abstraction you use? When might it not apply?