Blue Moon
By Sam Buntz, Staff Columnist
Published on Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Although I like to devote a minimum of my mental energy to politics, I was pleased to discover that President Barack Obama’s new budget eliminates funding for future moon exploration. I, for reasons I will soon explain, am highly opposed to any and all physical journeys to the moon. I’m also opposed to bombing the moon (which is something NASA did a short time ago in search of water) and otherwise molesting it. I am glad that the moon has returned to its rightful place as a big glowing circle in the sky that controls the tides, and isn’t subject to the prodding fingers of mankind, whose reach always insists on exceeding its grasp.
Don’t think, by any means, that I am opposed to science — far from it. Like anyone, I stand in awe of the latest descriptions of theoretical physics. But I am opposed (if only symbolically) to the needless contamination of a nice, simple thing like the moon with flags and politics that recall the Cold War. When he heard that an Anglo-Saxon had finally “conquered” Mount Everest, the Japanese scholar D.T. Suzuki remarked that a Buddhist would not have spoken of “conquering” the mountain, but rather of “befriending” it. Truly, our attitude to the moon is one of conquest. When the moon-landing happened in 1969, we weren’t impressed because we finally stood as close as possible to that fiery orb that had so long marked our minds with poetic intensity, but because we had managed to thoroughly appropriate and de-mystify its territory. The moon, once a poetic symbol — even, a god — has become just another target for petty human endeavor.
Essentially, I think my opposition to visiting the moon rests on the same grounds as John Keats’ famous charge against Isaac Newton, whom he deemed guilty of “unweaving the rainbow by reducing it to a prism.” By leaving our footprints on the moon, bombing it and pestering it in a hundred different ways, we reduce it to nothing more than a stupid old rock — just a big pile of dust hanging out in space.
Scientists argue that they make the moon more interesting by analyzing and quantifying its carbon content or whatever. But this is the only interest the moon generates for a purely mathematical mind — its poetry will always be dimmed by statistics and measurements. I can’t help but feel that Keats’s ideal is somehow more interesting and awe-inspiring: to be “capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason.” You might say that this sanctions infantilization — but I say that the world has never seemed as enthralling and full of terrible power to me as when I was a small child, when my imagination stood in awe of each object it encountered, unfettered by reason and logic. None of those objects seemed to be wholly external and alien things — they didn’t require me to conquer them and understand the construction of their constituent atoms — but they possessed a vivid strength. Every natural thing, including the moon, worked in friendship and kinship with myself.
I have a certain terrifying flight of imagination that I entertain sometimes: I imagine the remnant of humanity journeying further and further away from our home on some rusty, wheezing spaceship, in search of new planets. But all they find are dead, arid terrain and freezing, empty space — an utterly inhuman void. Think of the earth! We spend so much time frittering away our energy in external pursuits — conquering the moon, conquering an empire, conquering women, riches and fame. But where is the humanity in that? Where is the poetry that made the moon into a god, into the image of a human being like us? We spend so much money and resources conquering outer-space, but how much care have we lavished on exploring our inner-space? Truly that is the final frontier.
In the past, when we wove the moon into the tapestry of our myths, we were engaged in such an inner exploration. We spoke of outer things as though they were secret symbols of our inner selves, of the triumph and tragedy that attend human nature. Mystics and poets routinely journeyed into the heavens in a vehicle that cost them nothing — the human brain — rather than in a billion dollar space shuttle. In the midst of our current economic woes, it seems inevitable that we will need to consider what truly serves our humanity, and what is simply an extravagant waste.
Sam: Perhaps the reason you were not impressed when we first landed on the moon is because you were not yet born. I was, and was very impressed BECAUSE it represented the noblest of human endeavor. You seem to feel humans are “petty” compared to nature, when you should be considering that they are a part of it and shining example. (Are you also an apologist for American exceptionalism?) People the world over were uplifted in spirit by the first moon landing, “a giant leap for mankind”.
You are frightened of humans wandering cold space in search of a blue planet called Earth. (I cannot believe you are really a BattleStar Gallactia fan.) I look forward to the day when our advanced and evolved species, from multiple interplanetary homes, looks out over the glorious vistas of the universe with the same feelings we get looking at a sunrise today.
By Timothy A. Dreisbach 71 on Feb 3 | 8:54 am
Sam: An addition thought. Maybe we are not that far apart. You reference the moon as more than a rock, rather a poetic symbol that engenders the human spirit. I think the same is true of the stars, which serve to uplift the eyes of humanity. Yet in today’s world, how many people even see the stars at night anymore. At some time soon, the only way to see them will be from vantage points beyond our human-light polluted atmosphere. I predict the most visionary and inspired leaders of humans in the future will be those who live off-planet, having a more expansive view of the cosmos. Avatars in virtual reality will not get us there without the “real” world providing a base.
By Timothy A. Dreisbach 71 on Feb 3 | 9:06 am
Better than a Blue Moon, thanks to Apollo (Scroll to Picture 18):
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/07/remembering_apollo_11.html
When humans live between the stars, they will not just see the following images on a computer screen, but everytime they look out their window:
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/show/
By Timothy A. Dreisbach 71 on Feb 3 | 1:18 pm
The moon is such a cultural anchoring point precisely because it provokes our curiosity. Imagination is cheap. How much more precious is a wonder that we find to be real!
We did not reduce the moon to just a rock. We discovered it to be a WORLD! The first world outside our own that we mere mortals have visited!
I’m appalled that you accuse the great explorers, dreamers, and scientists of history of being mere conquistadors. Those of us who would visit the moon and beyond are driven by much deeper motivations than hubris and machismo. I’m sorry you do not join in our wonder.
“It is sometimes said that scientists are unromantic, that their passion to figure out robs the world of beauty and mystery. But is it not stirring to understand how the world actually works — that white light is made of colors, that color is the way we perceive the wavelengths of light, that transparent air reflects light, that in so doing it discriminates among the waves, and that the sky is blue for the same reason that the sunset is red? It does no harm to the romance of the sunset to know a little bit about it.” —Carl Sagan
“I’d take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.” —Douglas Adams
By Aaron J. Golas 07 on Feb 3 | 2:18 pm
If reason and logic “fetter” you, you’re doing it wrong. And if statistics and measurements as applied to space exploration don’t interest you and inspire you with awe, you’re missing out on a sublime world of beautiful mathematical poetry. It’s a shame you can’t see that. Please take a moment to read this: http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/voyager/pale_blue_dot.html It won’t take you five minutes, and hopefully from it you can learn to share in the wonder that others feel when they think about space exploration. :–)
By Sara Bersche Golas ‘05 on Feb 4 | 10:02 am
Also, we did not “bomb” the moon. There were no explosives used. We allowed an empty rocket to crash into the lunar surface. And as evidenced by all the craters, stuff crashing into the moon is nothing new. “Bombing” is just the language the media used to make an important experiment sound frivolous, for whatever reason. It wasn’t done for shits & giggles, it was a search for water, among other things. I assume that, like me, you consider the human race worth preserving, in which case, we need to start looking off-Earth.
By Anonymous on Feb 4 | 10:05 am
“Mankind’s reach is always exceeding its grasp.” This is not “always” the case, and the trying is certainly more noble than always grasping only a little because of a failure to reach farther. Is Mr. Buntz proud of his humanity, or embarrassed by it?
By Another Dreamer on Feb 4 | 10:32 pm