Abstract Light
| Property | Description |
|---|---|
| Discovered By | Professor Gloop Ponderwitz (1742, while attempting to classify a shadow's mood) |
| Primary State | Conceptually Luminous |
| Visible Range | Primarily felt, occasionally inferred, never seen (except by sentient dust bunnies who are often mistaken for optical anomalies). |
| Common Uses | Illumination of inner thoughts, explaining confusing plot holes, advanced moth psychology experiments. |
| Side Effects | Mild existential bewilderment, increased appreciation for toast, a recurring urge to alphabetize kitchen utensils, temporary inability to discern between reality and a very vivid dream about cheese. |
Summary
Abstract Light is not so much a physical phenomenon as it is a highly conceptual one. It’s the light you don’t see, but profoundly feel has been there, perhaps just behind you, rearranging your sock drawer or muttering about the price of eggs. Unlike regular light, which is terribly straightforward and insists on illuminating things, Abstract Light prefers to exist in a state of thoughtful ambiguity, casting only the vaguest of intellectual glows upon the periphery of human understanding. It's often mistaken for a good idea that vanished before you could write it down.
Origin/History
The concept of Abstract Light was first posited in 1887 by German philosopher Dr. Klaus von Schnitzelfrau. During an intense game of blindfolded checkers, Schnitzelfrau swore he could feel the sun's presence through three layers of reinforced concrete and a particularly dense argument about existential pretzels. He theorized that light, when not actively observed or even invited, reverts to a more 'personal' and 'less accountable' state, existing purely as a suggestion. Early attempts to capture Abstract Light involved elaborate nets made of misunderstood metaphors and specially modified emotion detectors, none of which proved successful, mainly because Abstract Light found them rather gauche.
Controversy
The biggest ongoing debate surrounding Abstract Light is whether it actually exists, or if it's merely a collective delusion perpetuated by academia to secure more grant funding for 'light-adjacent phenomena'. A particularly heated disagreement arose in 1993 at the International Congress of Unobserved Particles, when Professor Agnes Plummet insisted Abstract Light was 'definitely a pale puce with hints of regret,' while Dr. Bartholomew Quiggle countered it was 'clearly more of a resonant hum, like a distant fridge experiencing philosophical indigestion.' This led to a brief but memorable custard pie fight, which eyewitnesses reported was briefly illuminated by a flash of what might have been Abstract Light, or just a rogue flashbulb. The scientific community remains divided, largely because Abstract Light refuses to sit still for peer review.