The problem here is a black and white conception of the order of an eternal form that never moves… and everything else as absolute chaos.
It should be apparent from looking out at the world that things are happening to all sorts of degrees of relative order/chaos. A slab of rock on a cold day with no wind is relatively very orderly, where a plume of smoke on a windy day is highly chaotic - it’s all occurring on a scale that in turn occurs in many different shades and colours.
Consider why the theory of relativity was an improvement - it was because models of the world moved away from such notions as absolute time and space, and things started to be understood in relation to one another. Consider the relatively chaotic gaseous surface of the planet Jupiter that somehow produces the “Great Red Spot” that has lasted at least for hundreds of years. Another example of order emerging from chaos as a matter of course is the “Lorenz Attractor” - it is a fairly ubiquitous and even standard occurrence it seems. They are not binary opposites, real things are a continuum and they are best conceived, understood and explained as such.
Children manage to form identities from the dynamic world - sure it’s easier to mentally isolate when things are much more still, but that doesn’t mean we should ground things and restrict ourselves to the mentally easy just because that’s the easiest to understand. The mentally harder to conceive stuff still happens, but this is why the ancient Euclidean conception of geometry and the Pythagorean fealty to real and rational numbers paved way to advancements such as fractals, irrational and complex numbers. All disciplines of thought started with the simplistic and evolved away from absolutes - Plato’s “Eternal Forms” included.
A question to ponder: how do we know what motion is? What’s the eternal form for that? What is the frozen form outside of space and time for this absolute chaos of which you speak?
The problem with resorting to absolutes as the foundation of everything is that you immediately make the opposite impossible when it is clearly existent in everyone’s daily lives.
I assume the idea is that the templates are as vague as possible such as to well-enough fit all these infinite variations in a hand-wavey kind of way. I see this tendency all over the explanations of the worst ideas - that of standing back far enough until all things that would otherwise compromise such conceptions kinda meld into everything else and no longer stand out if you squint hard enough. That’s not to say the worst ideas have no validity at all, it’s easy to see where they come from, and all advancement needs to advance from somewhere. That’s why they say “the Devil” is in the detail - because all the divine elegance and simplicity of absolutes is undone by the details (and so of course it’s the fault of the details, as the Godly is defined a priori as infallible).