Thank you for you post. I believe you are inadvertently supporting my agruement.




Viewed magic is not logical and is not in agreement with known laws of nature; otherwise, where's the magic. By this definition, magic is incongruous. (As was stated by Bill.) Magic tricks are also "silly"; the notion that someone claims to read minds, make things appear or to fly is silly, or absurd. Who would argue this? James Randi? The definition of humor fits just fine.

Most magic definitions revolve around the supernatural. I am actually referring to the act of creating an illusion for entertainment purposes. I used the word magic in the context that we magicians and most laymen nowadays do. Properly speaking, magic is the wrong word for this. What should this be replaced with? Fooling? I will agree to this error. Since 'fooling' has negative connotations, for now, I will still use the word 'magic'. Give me a better word and I will use it.



Your thought on laughter is one point I am trying to make. Something does not have to produce laughter to be humorous. We also don't need other definitions. The legal definition you provided has 'amusing' right there. Or am I seeing things?

It seems to me that most everyone here wants magic to be in a special class of its own. That's an ego thing. Magic is a special class of humor, one of the hardest forms to master.

Not to re-hash. Ok, just a little. I'm not the only one who supports my theory. I post this because I finally found someone who will agree with me! It only took four and a half years.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/marco_t......ity.html

He gets into this at about the 3:50 mark.

OH my God. ONE person in 4 1/2 years agrees with you and you claim victory? How very Charlie Sheen of you. (See THAT was comedy!!!?)