Here is why I think we’re in a crisis of division and this why I intend to write daily (I am hoping to) posts to show a possible solution to this crisis:

Western thought has always been obsessed with splitting things in two. It gives us pairs like Being and Becoming, or mind and matter. From Plato’s perfect, eternal forms right through to the mechanistic atoms of modern science, the world has been carved into discrete entities. This forces us to invent bridges or mediators just to explain how they interact. Every so often, a new philosophy tries to reconcile these splits, like with dialectical synthesis or social construction. But the pattern of division persists. Reality ends up looking doubled: one half stable, the other mobile; one half objective, the other subjective; one half given, the other made.

Classical materialism was one attempt to fix this. It promised simplicity: if everything is matter, then any difference is just a matter of arrangement. But this flat materialism was hopeless at explaining things like novelty, meaning, or the felt interiority of experience. Its version of matter was just inert, extended, and mute. And in the 21st century, with ecological collapse and intelligent machines, that just won’t cut it. The world refuses this muteness. Matter vibrates, thinks, and communicates; it needs a new ontology adequate to its dynamism.

In response to this, we got the relational turn. Thinkers like Whitehead, Deleuze, Barad, and Latour came along and taught that entities are produced through relations, that being is event. This was a huge step. But I reckon something remains of the old architecture. A relation still implies relata; a network still requires nodes. We escape substances only to be trapped in their connections. The metaphysical gap survives in a subtler geometry.

This is why I see a need for a pre-relational ontology. What if we could think before the distinction of things and their relations?. What if we started from continuity rather than connection?. This continuity is what I call the Folded Field. It’s an immanent, self-modulating plane. Its curvatures generate everything that appears as object, subject, or relation. In this field, there are only folds, just inflections of a single, ongoing material-energetic process.
This changes the question we ask. Classical ontology asks what things exist. Relational ontology asks how things connect. The Folded Field asks something different: How does the world curve into difference within itself?. These folds aren’t things or ties; they are the topological gestures of reality’s own becoming. Each fold creates a provisional identity. When these folds stabilise, we perceive beings. When they modulate, we perceive relations. When they resonate, we perceive thought. Ontology becomes a study of curvature.

This view goes beyond the old triad of materialism, idealism, and constructivism. I see them as just temporal phases of one continuum. The field is material in its density, ideal in its reflexivity, constructive in its self-referential folding. No single one holds primacy.

And this leads directly to an ethics of curvature. If the world is one continuous, folding field, then ethics can’t just be about rights of individuals or balances of relations. It has to become a practice of care for the quality of curvature. We have to care for the ways our actions tighten, loosen, enrich, or impoverish the shared field of becoming. Suddenly, politics, art, and science alike are modes of field-craft: they are all just techniques for sustaining generative curvature.