More on Carl Sagan - the other side of idols

I think from time to time it's good to remember that these people who we idolize are very much human. :) This idea is especially important to me if I were to, say, write a screen play or something about his life, which I really wish already existed. I'm not sure why I always want to do this, but if the future holds some way for me to accomplish this desire, then the following anecodotes seem important. These quotes are taken from a blog called Neatorama: 10 Neat Facts About Carl Sagan, but some of the facts are decidedly not neat. :)

Especially this one:

In 1994, Apple chose the internal codename "Carl Sagan" for its PowerMac 7100. Though it was meant as an homage to Carl (and an in-joke that the computer would make Apple "billions and billions" of dollars), they also used the codenames "Piltdown Man" and "Cold Fusion" for the Power Mac 6100 and 8100, respectively. When Carl found out that he was being put alongside scientific hoaxes, he sued Apple. Though Apple won the suit, the codename was changed to BHA (Butt Head Astronomer) ... which prompted yet another lawsuit from the p.o.'d astronomer!

and this

Carl's popularity had backfired on him not once but twice. In 1967, he was denied tenure at Harvard because his colleagues bristled at "what they perceived as self-aggrandizement and pandering to the public."

There were some more idol-puncturing thoughts in the reviews of his biographies.
One of them is Keay Davidson's Carl Sagan: A Life
The other is A Life in the Cosmos by William Poundstone

Amazon.com Review
Carl Sagan may have been one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. Then again, he may have been a relentless self-promoter who convinced everyone he was one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. Keay Davidson, science writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, aims to explain this complicated man in his biography. One thing is clear: Sagan was an extremely difficult man to love, a scientist whose passion for astronomy and biology was unparalleled, but who had little ability to express basic emotions to his wives and children. Davidson looks for reasons for this emotional distance in Sagan's childhood, when his relationship with his mother was intense and sometimes difficult. She encouraged her bright young son to be an "intellectual omnivore," to be passionate about knowledge, but she didn't give him the tools to relate to humans as individuals.

As his stellar science career developed, Sagan built a reputation as a leftist who believed that "science could serve liberal ideals," and as an arrogant man with an unshakable confidence in his own brain. Davidson writes that Sagan developed his famous skepticism as an undergraduate. Sagan suffered from a "troubling mix of intense emotion and stark rationalism," writes Davidson. He succeeded (mostly) in balancing passion with reason, a balance that made him a perfect popularizer of science, a trustworthy authority who preached that an open mind was the most valuable scientific tool. Davidson was influenced personally by Sagan's writings, and he sometimes works a little too hard at puncturing the myths surrounding Sagan, but this biography is one that deserves to be read by Sagan's fans and detractors alike. It's a compelling, very real assessment of an all-too-human god of science. --Therese Littleton

Another reviewer compares the two books, so I'm going to put that here too:
"John Rummel (Madison, WI) - See all my reviews

Carl Sagan : A Life by Keay Davidson; (see also my review at Carl Sagan : A Life in the Cosmos by William Poundstone - this review considers both books)
Carl Sagan is easily the second most famous scientist of the 20th century. If you came of age in the period 1970-1990, you were influenced by Sagan - period. Whatever you may think of him as a scientist, you must admit that nobody did more to popularize science in the public eye during this period. The two most obvious examples are his Cosmos television series and his numerous appearances with Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show.

Poundstone's book reflects Ann Druyan's influence much more than Davidson's. The result is a much more flattering account of Sagan's life, potentially minimizing some of the warts. Davidson, if anything, spends too much effort trying to psychohistorically analyze Sagan's two failed marriages and his fractured relationship with oldest son Dorion.

Davidson also focuses much more attention on Sagan's books, attempting to plot the development of his career as a scientist and maturity as a writer based on each book's unique character. Here again, he attempts to delve below the surface into the hidden motives and influences. For instance, while both Poundstone and Davidson detail Sagan's marijuana use, Davidson goes further and suggests that the Pulitzer-winning Dragon's of Eden was largely a marijuana- induced work.

William Poundstone Focuses more on his scientific achievements, with emphasis on the many conferences he chaired regarding SETI, exobiology, and his work on the Voyager and Mariner probes to Mars and the gas giants. Some of the reviews of the latter actually read like a popular scientific account of these missions, written around Sagan's contribution and perspective.

A very rough generalization would be that Davidson looks more closely at Sagan's personal life while Poundstone looks more closely at his scientific achievemnts, though both books do cover the whole picture. Poundstone's book left me with more of a positive regard for Sagan though, and struck me as the better book of the two. Poundstone's account strikes me as first and foremost a work of scientific biography, with more detail of Sagan's scientific achievements.

And finally, one more review, about the Poundstone book.

It is impossible to be neutral about Carl Sagan (1934-1996). Though supporters and detractors agree that he was one of the most brilliant and influential scientists of the 20th century, they argue about the ways he handled his gifts, fame and prominence. Poundstone (Prisoner's Dilemma; Big Secrets) does nothing to reconcile these disparities. Instead, he lays out the details of Sagan's life and work, revealing why some people idolized him and others disdained him. Sagan's overwhelming need for love and attention destroyed his first marriage to Lynn Margulis, Poundstone explains. Decades later, Margulis remains ambivalent, admiring Sagan the public figure but not the man. Second wife Linda Salzman could neither forgive Sagan nor understand his betrayal when he and their friend Ann Druyan announced that they were profoundly in love and planned to marry. Salzman is conspicuously missing from Poundstone's list of acknowledgments, just as Sagan's alienated best friend, Lester Grinspoon, was conspicuously absentAso reports PoundstoneAfrom Sagan's deathbed. Sagan's scientific and public life is best known for its central quest and mission: searching for extraterrestrial life and sharing his love of science with the world. The so-far fruitless quest for ET continues, but Sagan's mission succeeded beyond all expectations. Because his greatest allegiance was to truth, Sagan would probably like this book. It tells readers why he chose to warn the world about "nuclear winter" despite weaknesses in the theory, and it includes the influence of marijuana highs on his work. Poundstone does not draw conclusions, but presents the evidence of Sagan's life and allows readers to develop their own theories of what that life might mean to their own. 16 b&w photos. Agent, John Brockman. (Oct.)

Some thoughts of self-awareness

You can run yourself ragged with self-awareness. It seems lke self-awareness is the necessary condition, an obligation, for all cultural prodcution now. and its exhuasting, to try and anticipate all criticisms, reactions, and thoughts and them off by demonstrating your thoughtful awareness of yourself. This is why deeply sincere things, cultural products of earlier times, seem so attractive to me, I think. There are those who are blissfully un-self-aware. Often, we make fun of those people, laughing at their ideas and feeling alright for doing so because they surely won't even be aware of themselves enough to notice we are laughing at them. Like this man on the Little Grey Book lecture series who owns a presidential museum in Ohio and who claims that George Washington was not the first president, among other things, with illogical, self-aggrandizing committment. The audience laughes at all his direct quotes - they are indeed, laughable, implausible or impossible arguments, far-fetched and amazing propositions, all filtered through a supremely un-self-aware personality. It's easy to LIKE this man, for all his obviously misguided notions, in fact, they make him endearing, but only in so far as he is unaware of how ridiculous they sound. He is piteous more than respectable. But we really only like him because he is funny to us, the audience. There are those who deeply and earnestly beleive in something, who have no patience or maybe even lack the sense of humor to make fun of themselves, and do not elicit laughter, like (here is comes. . . .) Carl Sagan. His "cosmos" seem to be a product of an earlier time when you could be serious without the need to acknowledge the irony of what you were doing. I love traveling to his place, via pixellated youtube clips, because, as soon as I got over the slightly cheesy graphics, the outdated and therefore kind o fhumorous musical scores and the occassional bad joke, i realized he had won me over with his overwhelming sincerity. I couldn't laugh at him walking among models of planets anymore once I saw the earnestness with which he was sharing his beleifs to us. I admire this. It is refreshing and endearing and deserving of respect in a very different way than the cold, removed, distant irony of so many cultural products today. I think it is because these videos could so easily fall into ironic appreciation that I love them even more, because they defy you to like them that way. You can try, and get your joke tshirt with carl sagan's head on it, but that just betrays your superficial rleatiosnhip to it all. If you allow yourself to put aside the obligation of hyper-self-awareness, you can see something very lovely and true unfolding, or at least that's how I see it. And that's the place where I'd like to be.

How do you make an un-ironic portrait of Carl Sagan?

The world may never know.

Connections: Specialness, balloons, and yes, Carl Sagan

OK. CONNECTION. The balloons of my previous work are about SPECIALNESS. Scratch that. Maybe ALL OF IT is about specialness. :) Things that are special and making you feel special. I think that is why the things that make me want to cry, make me want to cry. Special things mean they are the only, it means they are set aside and there is just that one, and there is such a HUGE desire in each of us, I think, to be special. But this is in total conflict with so much about what we know about the world. There is no privileged position because even "special" people are ordinary, and even special people get into car wrecks or plane crashes or get cancer. They are not protected from losing the things that are truly special, to them, their family and friends. And we are supposed to think that people are special, so then the only way to deal with things like knowing that 100,000 or however many people died in the earthquake in Haiti is to assume that the number of them makes the individuals less special, they seem less significant. That's what the numbers do for us. There is this extreme tension between wanting to be special, knowing that each individual is unique (a snow flake, if you will. . . which you shouldn't) and knowing that we are just one of a million species on earth. And now for the Carl Sagan connection (because you've been waiting and of course there is one). At the beginning of Pale Blue Dot, he goes through a very similar set of "demotions" that Robert Kruhlwich does on another episode of Radio Lab which recounts the history of humanity's place in the universe as we have seen it. It goes through a long list, essentially saying, "well, if we aren't at the center of the solar system, maybe our SOLAR system is the center of the galaxy!" etc. ad infinitum . .. down to our species being the only one that can do X, which we periodically change so that we are the top species, most important one, on the planet and ideally the ONLY one in the universe. But we are both heartbreakingly small and unique in that there might only be this one version of us anywhere, and horrifyingly mundane, just another planet around another star. Carl Sagan seems almost obsessed with teaching us this fact, that we are nothing, a speck on a speck on a speck, a "mote of dust" and that our egocentrism or earth-centrism or human-centrism is disguising reality. Every culture on Earth has believed that it was the chosen one, selected by God or even just by nature, as the pinnacle and most important. Even scientists fall prey to this desire to be SPECIAL. (All of this is illustrated much more eloquently, of course, by Carl Sagan). The point is that there is a very delicate balance, a struggle perhaps, between wanting desperately to be special and the heartbreaking knowledge that we are not. That there are "billions and billions" [sorry]. . . of human beings teeming on the planet but as each one of us is extinguished, it isn't really all that significant. It makes me think about this idea of pests and pets - the fine line between them - and the comment someone made in a critique which has stuck with me - that whenever we try to justify the killing of one particular group of people, we cast them as non-human ("cockroaches" often) and when we keep something as a pet, we make it more human, like our dogs. The more special something is, the tighter we hold to it, and the more plentiful, the easier it is to wipe them out, as a whole rather than individual, special parts.

This is, by the way, that famous pale blue dot photograph:

And here is an audio story of the anniversary of the "famous photograph that almost didn't happen" from NPR: An Alien View of Earth.

Also, here is an audio slideshow talking about those very changes in our perspective of ourselves from NPR: Views Of Earth From The Middle Ages To The Space Age.

I've got a Golden Record

My last bit of looking into Carl Sagan info led me to the Golden Record placed on the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft. I am not the first person to be enamored with this strangely poetic and beautiful gesture -- I think that was part of the point, but here are my thoughts anyway.

I am interested in what is actually ON the record, since I only have a vague idea.

There is an article from the New York Times called The Mix Tape of the Gods which I thought sounded good too.

According to wikipedia, you can get the CD from various libraries. "A CD-ROM version was issued by Warner New Media in 1992[9]. Both versions are out of print, but the 1978 edition can be found in many college or public libraries."

Anyway, the wikipedia article about it (Voyager Golden Record) is full of really intriguing and interesting ideas.

"thus the record is best seen as a time capsule or a symbolic statement rather than a serious attempt to communicate with extraterrestrial life."

"This is a present from a small, distant world, a token of our sounds, our science, our images, our music, our thoughts and our feelings. We are attempting to survive our time so we may live into yours.”
— U.S. President Jimmy Carter

"After NASA had received criticism over the nudity on the Pioneer plaque (line drawings of a naked man and woman), the agency chose not to allow Sagan and his colleagues to include a photograph of a nude man and woman on the record. Instead, only a silhouette of the couple was included."

Random fact:
"After the Pioneer Program, NASA put a Golden Record aboard the two Voyager spacecrafts, which included a greeting "Hello from the children of planet Earth." That was recorded by then six-year-old Nick Sagan, Carl's son." (from a blog of random facts)

Glorious Dawn - Carl Sagan

A few months ago, this fantastic video remix of various things Carl Sagan said went viral and basically everyone I knew online was talking about it. When I heard it, I immediately became mildly obsessed with it, listened to it 8 times, and then proceeded to send it to everyone else I knew, as is expected of something like this. The person who made it also made the video and mp3 available for free (bless them) so I have them in my permanent possession now :) but I also have it linked here.



Anyway, I didn't know much about Carl Sagan except for the very brief and wonderful love story about him and Ann Druyan and their work on the golden record included in the Voyager expedition from the Radiolab episode about Space. So I went on a cursory search of information about him beginning with the Carl Sagan wikipedia article.

There are so many reasons to find him and his work totally fascinating, not the least of which is his apparent talent of bringing complex scientific ideas to average people. I feel like he is a great example of someone whose passion for something exceeds that thing's natural appeal in such a way that makes it accessible to everyone else around him. For instance, take this sentence from the Wikipedia article which . . . says as much "Sagan's ability to convey his ideas allowed many people to better understand the cosmos—simultaneously emphasizing the value and worthiness of the human race, and the relative insignificance of the earth in comparison to the universe."

Also, this: "Isaac Asimov described Sagan as one of only two people he ever met whose intellect surpassed his own." I think this speaks to my general fascination with people who are brilliant and my nerd-crushes on all of them.

And also, some really interesting stuff about UFO's and . . . other things which remind me of the X-Files and are great. :) (I did find a mention of the particular episode that I was thinking of, by the way, on a wikipedia article about the Pioneer 10 spacecraft that they sent the golden record on. . . . "In the X-Files episode "Little Green Men", Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 2 can be heard whilst characters discuss the Golden Record.")

Here is something further about the remix that I didn't know: "In 2009, clips from Carl Sagan's Cosmos were used as the basis for A Glorious Dawn, the first video produced for the Symphony of Science, an educational music video production by composer John Boswell. Musician Jack White later released this song as a vinyl single under his record label Third Man Records.[51] Additional clips were used in the followup video, We Are All Connected, which featured Sagan alongside other noted scientists Richard Feynman, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and Bill Nye" I think this might be from Wikipedia or something. Not sure.