Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0710050052050.6697@panix3.panix.com>
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
To: Cyb <cybermind@listserv.aol.com>, Wryting-L <WRYTING-L@listserv.wvu.edu>,
Cyberculture <cyberculture@zacha.org>
Subject: notes for flying saucer talk - need feedback?
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 00:53:39 -0400 (EDT)
I'm giving a talk at the Society for Literature, Science, and the Arts on a panel dealing with Gray Barker and flying saucers - would appreciate any feedback re: below. I want to proceed through the classification scheme to issues of the _absence_ of abjection in relation to cleansed or clean objects and the 'purity' of sightings and classification schemes - - Alan They Knew Too Much About Flying Saucers, Gray Barker, orig. 1956 The Mothman Prophecies, John A. Keel, orig. 1975 Interstellar Communication, edited A.G.W. Cameron, 1963 Flying Saucers, Serious Business, Frank Edwards, 1966 They Flying Saucer Reader, Jay David, 1967 West Virginia UFOs, Close Enounters in the Mountain State, Bob Teets, orig. 1995 Well, what do we have in general: 1 There are things in the sky 2 The things appear unfamiliar 3 They often hover 4 They often fly 'erratically' 5 They often have flashing or other lights 6 They are unidentified, i.e. fit in no acceptable category. 7 There are witnesses 8 As with Freud, description, not explanation, i.e. no substructure 9 Or rather substructure on the level of the anecdote 10 Perhaps a relationship between this substructure and psy-a entities 11 In general the things appeared 'manned,' i.e. guided by alien intelligent organisms 12 The intelligent organisms may make themselves visible to witnesses 13 There are varying degrees and qualities of contact 14 The aliens are defined, i.e. not abject as in many contact films 15 There is a double projection at work: abjection in contact films, literature, etc. dialectical and defined in reportage 16 One might say the films are the literal cinematic projection of the imaginary 17 And the reportage is the literal introjection of the symbolic 18 Classification from: The Ranking of UFO Reports: A Possible Methodology, John Prytz, PFOCON 6, Adelaide, South Australia, October 1981: Categories: Four Quarters: The "Object" Evidence The Witness The External Environment: Influences between the object and the witness Movement / Duration (of movement or event) / Characterics: Color|hint of shape|defined shape|extra details|extra details defined "(legs, windows, etc.)"|"Indepth description - occupants noted - high strangeness" Mechanical Witness: photos/series/cinema/sonar/radar Physical Evidence: radioactivity|electro-magnetic trace|geological trace|environmental trace| UFO fragment Biological, Physiological and/or Psychological Reaction and Changes: various durations Witnesses: numbers of|same or different locations types of: wild animals|domestic animals|young child|adult human or teenager|mechanical|etc. Reliability factor of: poor mental physical condition, known hoaxer through average to above average in mental/physical condition; expert in observing abilities and experience Distance from object: greater than 10 mi. through less than 50' through inside object Weather: Fog mist etc. through unlimited visibility Time of day: Twilight through absolute darkness through daylight [my additions below] Communication: viewing|communicating (physical signifiers|verbal-acoustic|thought)| touch|scent|smell|other (static in air|magnetic)|apparent ascertained causality|action at a distance Abduction: remembered|abductee revealing thru hypnosis|revelations by others| person returned|person not returned| - this leads into the social: (surgical/sexual/coversant/education/etc.) Emotional: Perceived danger|arousal|hysteric|crying|screaming|whispering|awe|fear| empathy or sympathy|etc. 19 "Tell me a story": Narrative issues: To the extent that a story can be told (i.e. plot development), abjection is excluded. (Or abjection 'bends' the text towards a-coherency, obscenity, etc.)