Trajectory is one of the most precise concepts within relational ontology, for it allows movement to be understood without reducing it to a mechanical sequence of events. From a relational perspective, a trajectory is not a line that can be drawn upon a timeline but a manner in which a relational field reorganises itself through successive stabilisations. It is not a path followed by a thing, since things do not exist as substances, but rather a sequence of transformations unfolding through the field. A trajectory is therefore a history of tensions that achieve local equilibrium at particular moments, subsequently enter instability, and then reorganise themselves into a new form.
In this sense, a relational trajectory is always dynamic, always open, and always susceptible to change. It cannot be predicted in a deterministic manner because its future configurations depend upon instabilities that have yet to emerge. Yet it is not chaotic. The relational field possesses its own logic, rhythms, and tendencies that impart a certain direction to the trajectory. That direction is not a destination but a vector of tensions. The trajectory does not move towards something; rather, it arranges itself in a particular manner. Relational ontology thus offers a way of describing movement without teleology, dynamics without substance, and development without essence.
Relational trajectories exist at different scales and on different levels. There are micro-trajectories concerning individual relations, such as the trajectory of attention shifting between stimuli, the trajectory of emotion oscillating between tension and release, or the trajectory of perception reorganising itself according to context. There are also macro-trajectories encompassing entire relational fields, such as the trajectory of language evolving through time, the trajectory of an institution passing through successive phases of stability and crisis, or the trajectory of culture reorganising its forms in response to technological, social, and ecological change.
All these trajectories share a common characteristic: they are not linear. Relational ontology rejects linearity as a simplification incapable of capturing the complexity of the field. A trajectory is always curved, multilayered, and filled with returns, bifurcations, and oscillations. It is not a straight road but a movement continually responding to its own instabilities. In this respect, a relational trajectory resembles the dynamics of an organism far more than the mechanics of a body. It is a process of self-regulation that constantly adjusts itself to changing conditions.
Relational trajectories also reveal that every form is merely a temporary stage within a longer process. What appears stable, whether a structure, an institution, a conviction, or an identity, is only a single point along a trajectory. Form is not an end but a moment. Its significance derives not from what it is in isolation but from where it emerged and where it is leading. Relational ontology therefore enables forms to be understood not as objects but as phases of movement. Whatever exists, exists within a trajectory.
It is important to recognise that relational trajectories are not autonomous. Every trajectory is intertwined with others: the trajectory of an individual with that of a community, the trajectory of language with that of technology, and the trajectory of consciousness with that of the body. The relational field is a network of trajectories that continuously modulate one another. In this sense, there is no meaningful distinction between “my” trajectory and “your” trajectory. There are only trajectories that intersect at particular points, producing temporary stabilisations that we call relations. This is precisely why relational ontology is an ontology of coexistence: trajectories are not parallel but entangled.
The trajectory of consciousness constitutes a particularly distinctive example of this dynamic. Consciousness is not a substance but a trajectory of stabilisation capable of recognising its own instabilities. Its movement is not linear but spiral in character. It returns to earlier forms, reorganises them, and endows them with new meanings. Memory, therefore, is a trajectory rather than an archive; identity is a trajectory rather than an essence; understanding is a trajectory rather than a state. Consciousness is a movement that continually creates itself through relations.
Relational trajectories also possess an ontological dimension. They reveal that the world is not a collection of things but a collection of movements. Whatever exists, exists because it moves. Whatever endures, endures because it is sustained by trajectories of relations. Whatever changes, changes because the relational field reorganises its tensions. Relational ontology does not describe the world as a static structure but as a dynamic network of trajectories continuously generating new configurations.
Finally, relational trajectories reveal that every form represents merely one among many possible courses a field might have taken. What has occurred could have occurred otherwise. What exists could exist in a different configuration. What endures could dissolve. A trajectory is therefore not a necessity but a possibility. Its beauty lies in being unpredictable yet coherent, open yet directional, dynamic yet recognisable.
Leave a Reply