I'm noticing something interesting about us bizzarists that I'm wondering about. It just occured to me and I probably should think about this a bit more. Could be just me. . .

Anyway, there seems to be two groups here. Those who are skeptics (rather Houdini like)who might want to believe in some of the ideas we use in our routines, and those who want to follow the ideas further to find out how real they can be (Doyle like, I think).

Has anyone else noticed this. I don't know which camp I'd find myself in - probably leaning more toward the latter.

Hmmm. . .curious. . .what do you think?
Mark

Hi Mark,

You may be having some introspection on a much deeper twentieth century zietghiest issue.

The turning point for functional intellectuals was accepting Freud's idea that the consious mind floats like an raft on a sea of unconsious mental activity. The current expression of this idea is 'emergent systems'.

Yes, the world views of magic versus conspiracy are entertaining distractions. So far it seems nature is more surprising than either interpretation.

-So, is Middle Earth some time in the far past or perhaps in the future? No fossil record of elves or hobbits...

JonTown

I prefer to think maybe it exists right now.
;)

Mark

Mark--

Exactly!!!!
Hence my first post a while ago about who really believes. I am both though. Anybody ever read The Final Seance about their (Houdini and Doyle's) relationship?

I agree there are the groups. Isn't it fun though?

Ellen
harryandersonfan.com
New Orleans or I Bust 2003!

Well, if there are two camps, why not a third? So I belong to this third. I believe everything that I do for a participant (I don't call them spectators anymore, they are closer than that!) is real, for if I cannot convince myself of what I am doing, then how will I convince any one else?
Anyway, just my thoughts.

Okay, so a third camp then.

Mark