If an object is not an essence, idea or relation, then what is it, according to a process philosophy of movement? We need to look no further than the kinetic origins of the word ‘object’, from the Latin ob – (‘against’) + iaci (‘I throw’). The object is a fundamentally kinetic process. It is something thrown into motion and turned against or looped around itself. It is a fold. Instead of a discrete, vacuum-sealed atom, objects are continuous processes that fold back over themselves, making more complicated knots. My point is not that we have to accept this deﬁnition because the Romans used this word. The Latin roots indicate that there is some precedent for thinking of objects as processes that I believe are worth recovering. The object is not a discrete or static block of space and time, but a kinetic process.