Combat Diary Number 6


"O Mercurie, foregoer to the evening,
O heavenlie huntress of the savage mountaines,
O lovelie starre, entitled of the morning,
While that my voice doth fill the woeful vallies
Vouchsafe your silent eares to playning musique,
Which oft hath Echo tir'd in secrete forests."
(Sidney, Arcadia)

"Imagery is the urgent means by which experience holds our attention. Images are not still lifes to be hung on walls. They are visions of the history of the race and of life and death."
Stephen Spender


In Combat Diary 6, Laurel Oplatka corrects poor Panzerben's hog-chauvinist mistaken assumption about her gender, but she vows to investigate the Bad Man's fascinating mind. Meantime, the three musketeers, George Hansen, Panzerben, and Mac Tonnies, fight off a counter attack by Queen "1950s" Hall, and Father "1970s" Maccabee and the Factoids. What a group!
Father Maccabee further develops his epistemology by reducing Art Literature, Ideas, and all Philosophy to a chain of simple commercial transactions.

Q & A Time with the Bad Man

-Bad Man, what do you think of the new idea of Intelligent Design?
-The problem sir, is that parts of the universe are not intelligently designed.
-Give me an example.
Well, false teeth made by men are better than those made by God, sir. 



From: Laurel Oplatka <calabash2003@webtv.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:07:33 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:40:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Corso - Oplatka


>From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:22:43 -0000
>Subject: Re: Corso

<snip>

>I look forward to Mr Oplatka's next question in fear and
>trembling.

<snip>

Being a lay person does seem to pose some difficulty to being on
this List... and now Colin Bennett has called me a "Mr." in his
latest post, (perhaps he was thinking about Stan Laurel), but I
am female. Speaking of which, I frequently refer to the
writings/research of A. Druffel, J. Randles, L. M. Howe, K.
Wilson, as well as K. Turner.

Why do I insist upon reading/pondering/experiencing the hugely
erudite, vastly witty and transcendental mind of Mr. Bennett? My
introduction to this 'UFO thing' (referring to it as a phenomena
no longer even makes sense to me), was by way of the Lorenzen's
APRO - their works and friendship - which I respected very much.
I also indeed respect Stanton Friedman and Richard Hall.

The causative factor in my clinging to strictly nuts-and-bolts,
in the beginning, was due to - plain and simply - fear. What's
wrong with my admitting that primal fear locked me into linear
thinking and kept me from reading even the Tibetan Book Of The
Dead?

In any event, JFK (Grace, Fowler, Keel) among others, propelled
me out of my shell, leading me into more non-linear pursuits, an
ever-expanding library, new conversations on and off line. Yes,
I did read David "Komodo Dragon" Icke (how can he still be
alive?) - and just recently one of his violent critics has
'go there' right now.....

My seemingly non-UFO related readings (which have a pretty broad
scope, I think), started bleeding into my UFO library... well, my
physical brain, "mind" both conscious and sub, psyche/soul are pushing
me into delving into and exploring the writings of Colin Bennett, as
well as yikes! Quantum Theory, the question re: that subject will be,
for me, which books to pursue (Ghost of the Atom ? There are over a
thousand books on Quantum Physics, Mechanics - where to start?) Matter
isn't solid how to deal with this wave-particle dilemma?


Laurel

From: George Hansen <gphansen2001@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:36:41 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:23:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Corso - Hansen


Judging from some of the comments on Colin Bennett's posts, I
gather that many ufologists do not appreciate just how pertinent
postmodern and deconstructionist theory is for ufology.

The intellectual vertigo that some may feel after reading
Bennett is altogether similar to that experienced by
establishment scientists who read the UFO literature.

Unfortunately, most ufologists are trapped in beliefs in
literalism and in the transparency of language, beliefs shared
by both scientists and religious fundamentalists--the major
antagonists of ufology. This is no accident.

Postmodern literary theory emphasizes problems of interpretation
(it problematizes "meaning"). Hermeneutics is the study of
interpretation, and it was named for Hermes, the Greek
trickster. (Some may have suspected Colin Bennett of pulling a
hoax, but the same suspicion was directed at Claude Levi-
Strauss, founder of modern structuralism [which fostered
deconstruction].)

"Meaning" is a liminal phenomenon. It has a betwixt and between
quality (this should be clear to anyone familiar with Saussure's
work on semiotics). UFOs likewise are strongly liminal, and they
share many of the properties of "meaning." UFOs subvert the
internal-external, fact-fiction, subjective-objective, heaven-
earth, human-divine, unconscious-conscious, and word-referent
binary oppositions (to name just a few).

Those who denounce Colin Bennett's approach are woefully
ignorant. There is a massive amount of pertinent theory
supporting his approach. Ufologists are welcome to ignore that
work, but if they do, they should not be surprised at their
reception in intellectual circles. Their sneers at Derrida are
only too telling.

George P. Hansen

=====

The Trickster and the Paranormal

http://www.tricksterbook.com


From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:06:45 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:17:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Corso - Tonnies


>From: George Hansen <gphansen2001@yahoo.com>
>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
>Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:36:41 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: Re: Corso

>Judging from some of the comments on Colin Bennett's posts, I
>gather that many ufologists do not appreciate just how pertinent
>postmodern and deconstructionist theory is for ufology.

I agree. If we're going to embrace the UFO phenomenon (as
opposed to a few scattered reports that seem to fit convenient
labels) then nothing less than a holistic, mythologically
inclusive philosophy is needed. Ufology, as I interpret the
term, encompasses not just the occasional daylight disk or
nocturnal light, but the network of systems - "scientific,"
"skeptical," belief-driven, etc. - that give rise to UFO
reports. As such, ufology is richly anthropological.

I don't think open-minded science and Bennett's postmodern (or
whatever you want to call it) take are mutually exclusive at
all. But when one starts to push the other out of the
investigative arena, we're in deep trouble. Bennett's "Looking
for Orthon" and Hynek's "The UFO Experience" are equally
relevant. They relate to the subject in unique, but very
meaningful, ways.

<snip>

>Those who denounce Colin Bennett's approach are woefully
>ignorant. There is a massive amount of pertinent theory
>supporting his approach. Ufologists are welcome to ignore that
>work, but if they do, they should not be surprised at their
>reception in intellectual circles.

The argument against Bennett seems to be that, on close reading,
he isn't quite the intellectual he seems to be. I urge Bennett's
detractors to read "Looking for Orthon" and "Politics of the
Imagination," available by clicking the URL below:

http://www.mactonnies.com/ufobooks.html

Bennett redefines and mutates our fundamental approach to the
UFO enigma as ably as Vallee. (And when he's not forced to
constantly defend himself, his prose is remarkably agreeable.)

=====
Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

Transcelestial Ontology, Theoretical Ufology and Postmillennial Studies
http://www.mactonnies.com



From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:15:39 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:37:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Corso - Hall


>From: George Hansen <gphansen2001@yahoo.com>
>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
>Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:36:41 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: Re: Corso

>Judging from some of the comments on Colin Bennett's posts, I
>gather that many ufologists do not appreciate just how pertinent
>postmodern and deconstructionist theory is for ufology.

>The intellectual vertigo that some may feel after reading
>Bennett is altogether similar to that experienced by
>establishment scientists who read the UFO literature.

>Unfortunately, most ufologists are trapped in beliefs in
>literalism and in the transparency of language, beliefs shared
>by both scientists and religious fundamentalists--the major
>antagonists of ufology. This is no accident.

George,

And of course this postmodernism supplants everything science
has established to date, is this your belief?

>Postmodern literary theory emphasizes problems of interpretation
>(it problematizes "meaning"). Hermeneutics is the study of
>interpretation, and it was named for Hermes, the Greek
>trickster. (Some may have suspected Colin Bennett of pulling a
>hoax, but the same suspicion was directed at Claude Levi-
>Strauss, founder of modern structuralism [which fostered
>deconstruction].)

>"Meaning" is a liminal phenomenon. It has a betwixt and between
>quality (this should be clear to anyone familiar with Saussure's
>work on semiotics). UFOs likewise are strongly liminal, and they
>share many of the properties of "meaning." UFOs subvert the
>internal-external, fact-fiction, subjective-objective, heaven-
>earth, human-divine, unconscious-conscious, and word-referent
>binary oppositions (to name just a few).

I keep asking, and waiting, for any of you who spout this
gobbledegook to explain your epistemology, if you have any.
Literary commentary is a source of ultimate truth? Does it tell
you how to make practical decisions in the real world? Or do you
secretly use (that old bugaboo) factually based logical
reasoning to make decisions?

>Those who denounce Colin Bennett's approach are woefully
>ignorant.

Oh, really?

There is a massive amount of pertinent theory
>supporting his approach. Ufologists are welcome to ignore that
>work, but if they do, they should not be surprised at their
>reception in intellectual circles. Their sneers at Derrida are
>only too telling.

"Theories" are a part of scientific method, not of tea-leaf
reading. How did they sneak into this discussion in which
science is passe?


-- Dick



From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:19:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:53:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Corso - Maccabee


>From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 23:43:30 -0000
>Subject: Re: Corso

>Why do people write about Corso in such flat uninspired tones?
>Most contributions sound like manic-depressive driving
>instructors discussing their mortgage payments and ingrowing
>toenails. Has no-one ever seen the The Day After Roswell as
>Literature, symbol, art form? Has no one seen it indeed as one
>of the most exciting UFO books ever written and one that puts
>more sober, dull and pedestrian tomes to shame? Has not anyone
>anything to say about the narrative, the colour, the characters,
>the themes? As far as a qualitative assessment of the book goes,
>it is discussed as if it were a dead cat wrapped in a rag.

Corso as great literature. <ROFLMAO>

There is only one big reason ufologists were interested in
Corso: he claimed to have the proof. When that claim was found
to have the solidity of a Swiss cheese the interest waned.

If Corso had claimed his book was a novel, it would have
received a different treatment... and it wouldn't have sold as
well as it did.






From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:15:00 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:39:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Corso - Tonnies


>From: Laurel Oplatka <calabash2003@webtv.net>
>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
>Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:53:33 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: Re: Corso

<snip>

>But I do not think your intent is to say that science is to be
>supplanted in toto, am I right? To my sensibilities, this
>"issue" is not an either/or proposition. Does this not echo the
>suggestion of Mac Tommies: "Bennett's 'Looking for Orthon' and
>Hynek's 'UFO Experience' are equally relevant"? If they are not
>found to be mutually exclusive, then, in considering both of
>these works, could not (much of) today's Ufology be synthesized
>and ultimately transcended into some sort of (not to be cliche')
>new paradigm?

Whatever form this new paradigm takes, it will have to encompass
the likelihood that UFOs are something altogether stranger than
simply misidentified phenomena or "alien spaceships."

Jacques Vallee has pointed out that the 'aliens' and their
apparent frequency of activity (i.e., taking soil specimens,
etc.) are inconsistent with ET visitors. Therefore he suggested
that we're actually dealing with a multidimensional intelligence
that's engaging us in a playful (?) metaphorical dialogue. By
insinuatinmg themselves into our belief structures, 'they' (if
this term is even applicable) have been able to hide from us by
becoming our mythology.

Possibilities like this demand a radically new and flexible
paradigm, and it seems to me that the ideas of Bennett and
George Hansen are on the right track. The UFO intelligence is
indeed "liminal". It appears to require this in order to operate
in a psychosocial context, disturbing intellectually fashionable
"nuts and bolts" materialism but at the same time remaining just
over our evidential horizon.

Maybe we're dealing with literal ETs after all. But if we are,
it appears they're involved in a long-term agenda much more
portentous and subtle than simply checking out our nuclear
installations, providing unsolicited health check-ups, and
playing chicken with airplanes.


=====
Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

Transcelestial Ontology, Theoretical Ufology and Postmillennial Studies
http://www.mactonnies.com