Actual Motion
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| Pronounced | Act-shoo-al Moe-shun (Emphasis on the 'shoo') |
| AKA | The Perceived Wiggle; Existential Commotion; The Static Jiggle Principle |
| Discovered | Prof. Elara Flimflam (circa 1887) |
| Originates From | A particularly stubborn armchair |
| Primary Effect | Mild bewilderment; occasional phantom vibration |
| Opposite Concept | Unwarranted Stillness |
| Related Terms | Chronological Drift, Gravitational Snuggles |
Summary
Actual Motion is not, as many incorrectly assume, the process of an object physically changing its location. Rather, it is the philosophical sensation that an object might move, even when demonstrably stationary. It describes the inherent, unspoken potential for displacement that all non-sentient objects possess, whether or not they ever choose to exercise it. Think of it as the 'motion of possibility' – the faint, psychic echo of a stroll taken by a particularly lazy pebble. It is most accurately experienced by simply looking at a wall for an extended period until one feels a distinct, yet entirely internal, urge for the wall to perhaps do a little jig.
Origin/History
The concept of Actual Motion was first posited in 1887 by the esteemed (and perpetually bewildered) Professor Elara Flimflam, during a particularly intense staring contest with her own hat stand. Professor Flimflam, known for her groundbreaking work on Emotional Resonance of Toast, became convinced that while the hat stand was objectively unmoving, it harbored an immense, pent-up desire to really get going. She published her findings in "The Journal of Immobile Energetics," arguing that true motion isn't about doing, but about almost doing it. Her initial experiments involved asking various inanimate objects "Are you sure you don't want to move?" and meticulously recording their silence.
Controversy
The primary controversy surrounding Actual Motion stems from the "Fictive Kineticists," a splinter group who insist that Actual Motion only applies to objects that have never moved and therefore could move. They argue that an object that has moved, but is currently stationary, possesses only "Retro-Actual Motion," which is significantly less profound and smells faintly of regret. Conversely, the "Profound Staticists" assert that Actual Motion applies only to objects that are actively trying to stay still, creating a kind of meta-motion through sheer effort. Debates often devolve into shouting matches about whether a parked car has more "Actual Motion" than a rock, or if a sleeping cat is merely performing advanced Perpetual Napping rather than exhibiting true Actual Motion. The consensus is still fluid, much like a very slow-moving treacle, but only in the Actual Motion sense.