For three decades I've juggled three ontologies, or views of reality.
1. One that is obviously limited or downright wrong: the static, atomistic-materialistic one that holds particles and objects to be the core of reality.
2. A dynamic ontology, like that of Heraclitus, Bergson and Whitehead. It sees reality as a river with stable eddies and whirlpools that channel the flow and make it appear as stable, localized entities (this was the topic of my first book, "Flux"). These appearances of stability I called forms and argued that the forms of the social world (values, norms, roles, institutions) suited humans best when they were stable and flexible at the same time, or flexstable.
3. A more scientifically realistic ontology that starts from string theory and quantum field theory. This view sees physical reality in terms of oscillators that vibrate spontaneously, like strings, in the quantum vacuum, taking the shape of electromagnetic, gravitational and other kinds of field, force and radiation. This frequency or wave description has been part and parcel of quantum mechanics since its inception, but Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen School accorded it only status as "complementary" with the particle view (to which it is clearly superior). Seeing atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, perception, memory, disease and many other complex phenomena in terms of oscillations or waves interacting in standing interference patterns is a view that is breaking through scientifically these current decades, ever so slowly. (I wrote a short, popular account: kronik i Politiken).