Swimming in a sea of process, flowing with the questions

In the natural sciences, the previously dominant mode of thinking from Parmenides to Aristoteles to Newton took the world to be a complex system of lawful cause-and-effect. The object of science was to look unto the world objectively and report the truth about the things it saw. Atoms everywhere, running around mindlessly, bumping into each other. Quantum theory took the fun out of that game by proclaiming the wave-particle duality and showing that 'things', such as atoms, were really more like relatively stable patterns, statistical regularities (and then only at the level of aggregrate phenomena). "For quantum theory taught that, at the microlevel, what was usually deemed a physical thing, a stably perduring object, is itself no more than a statistical pattern - a stability wave in a surging sea of process." (Rescher, 1996)

I'm writing my thesis on the action-structure debate in sociology, and what I find striking is that if you take the story above and apply it (somewhat metaphorically, perhaps) to the social sciences, you start seeing all kinds of fascinating things. The social sciences seem to be pretty caught up in the language of things and objects - no longer purely in the modernistic Newtonian sense, but it does emphasize stability over change, substance over process, structure over action, order over chaos. What happens when you apply some of this quantum thinking to the social sciences?

Structures, persons, organisations, ideas - these are all probability spaces, 'stability waves in a sea of process', the point of intersection between energy-potentiality and actuality-reality. Organisations are interwoven, interdependent network-weavings of energy-information, dynamic exchanges, spaces of interactional touching. Dynamic equilibria, static dynamics. Heraclitus said 'panta rhei', everything flows. The world as 'real, lived experience' flows. Our past is a huge wave, and we're riding its crest, ever falling into the future. Our past carries and constrains the present. Negative freedom: freedom from the past, from constraint, from conditions. Positive freedom: freedom to create, to act, to come into being in the present. We are ourselves probability spaces, constantly bifurcating, past or present? Will I be who I was, who I've been? Who am I? When I become conscious of the ways in which my past is in me, here, now, I become free of it. Consciously, here, now, I become free to let come, to become. There is a stimulus in the present. Bifurcation point: extrapolate from the past, from karma? Stand in the space between stimulus and response, in the present, the space of dharma - what do I do, who am I? Will I be myself or will I be my Self? The choice is mine. Yes, if I am conscious, free from what I am conscious of, free to be Self instead of self. No, I am conditioned by what I am, by the past self that is in me, by my karmic inheritance. Who have I been, who am I, who am I to be, now, and now, and now?

Ok, so I just let go of myself there for a bit. I'm just thinking out loud, trying to plant a bomb of paradoxical meaning and questions. Blow what I know, what remains is the question.

?