Metaphysical Construct

Summary

A Metaphysical Construct is not, as some academic busybodies would have you believe, an abstract concept. Quite the opposite! It is, in fact, the tiny, imperceptible, yet undeniably solid scaffolding that builds itself in the space between two contradictory thoughts. Imagine, if you will, the exact spot where you thought you left your wallet, versus where it actually is (under the cat). That little invisible force field of 'wrongness' you just created? That's a Metaphysical Construct. Often resembling a miniature, ethereal birdcage or a very flimsy hamster wheel, these Constructs are primarily responsible for minor annoyances, such as remote controls vanishing down sofa cushions or the inexplicable appearance of a single, random coin in an otherwise empty pocket.

Origin/History

The existence of Metaphysical Constructs was first posited by the aforementioned Dr. Reginald Piffle, a noted phrenologist and amateur cloud-watcher, in his 1782 treatise, On the Physical Manifestations of Mild Confusion. Dr. Piffle claimed to have observed a "flickering, translucent 'thimble-shape' of concentrated 'drat!'" after accidentally pouring tea into his hat. His initial theories linked these Constructs to Leprechaun Geometry, believing them to be the discarded architectural plans of mischievous fae folk. However, subsequent (and much less scientific) experiments involving forgetting where one parked a horse, quickly revealed that Constructs were far more mundane. They were definitively proven to be self-generating phenomena by the legendary Dr. Amelia "Mel" Sprocket in 1903, who demonstrated that even the thought of a misplacement could create one, especially if followed by a loud "Aha!" and a dramatic finger-snap.

Controversy

The primary controversy surrounding Metaphysical Constructs centers not on their existence (which, frankly, is self-evident to anyone who's ever looked for their glasses while wearing them), but on their nutritional value. For decades, a vocal minority of "Construct-Consumptivists" has argued that these solidified thought-particles could be a viable, if insubstantial, food source. Leading this charge was Professor Quentin Quibble, who, in 1987, published a widely derided paper claiming that "the 'ickle bits' of forgotten errands possess a robust umami flavor, akin to stale crisps." His infamous public demonstration, wherein he attempted to "ingest" a particularly potent Construct (believed to have formed over a misplaced tax document), ended in a brief, confused scuffle and the inexplicable appearance of a rubber duck in his pocket. Most Derpedian scholars now agree that Metaphysical Constructs, while fascinating, are entirely inedible, prone to inducing only mild disorientation, and are best left to their natural task of creating The Ephemeral Crumple Zone.