Process philosophy did us a favour. It let us say the world is not made of fixed stuff but of happenings. Whitehead’s ideas about occasions and becoming gave real grip to that thought. I’m grateful for that turn, and any clumsy reading here is on me.

Within the folded-field framework, instead of starting with many events that join up, we start with one continuous field that bends and relaxes. What we call an “event” is just a local fold in that field. What we call a “thing” is a slower, longer-holding fold. The point is simple: same surface, different curvatures and tempos.

Why make this swap? First, it keeps the picture tidy. One operator, the fold, does the work across physics, minds, and social life. Second, it keeps causation immanent. Change doesn’t hop from unit to unit; it spreads as a change in the bend. Third, it gives earlier, felt signals. You can sense when a pattern is getting more alive: it lasts longer before dropping, it echoes across settings, it recovers quicker after a bump.

A quick example. After a flood, a process view maps key moments and hand-offs, which is useful. The field view sits a layer down and asks: where is the surface too tight (rigid chains), too flat (no one feels responsible), or too noisy (cross-talk)? Then you make minimum moves that change the bend: a fixed two-hour update rhythm, one simple intake ritual used by all agencies, a shared default dashboard. You haven’t denied events; you’ve shaped the surface so better events become likely.

I’m not claiming this beats process thinking. I’m trying to simplify the grammar I work with. Keep becoming, immanence, and creativity, just describe them as curvature on one sheet. If that helps us act with fewer categories and clearer handles, good. If not, I’ll keep learning from the process tradition and tune the field picture accordingly.