In astronomy there's a semantics argument that there's no such thing as moonlight and that it's ontologically just sunlight. But I believe that there actually is moonlight, and thus moonlight is even semantically correct. For though the Moon is 'merely' reflecting light from the Sun this is not to say that the lunar midwife does not through this process become the bottommost substance behind the phenomenon of earthbound moonlight. Were there no Moon to catch it, sunlight would dissipate into the intercosmic void. Each wave of light thus derives its new form from its transformative infusion with the Moon. Brought to bear on a different object in orbit around the Sun, the light would produce its own phenomenological nexus. In such a way Pluto light also derives itself from the Sun's rays, but by the means of reflection there is something doing a reincarnating of the original substance of sunlight, while the sunlight simultaneously fertilizes the body in its darkness and gives full birth to it, in a way resurrecting it through light. Visible light is a particular substance which interacts with another substance within the space continuum— on an atomic level the electrons belonging to their respective coagulated forms, where light is the most purified matter-form. The result is a dual substance because without this second substance the light would dissipate in empty space— indeed light has little meaning if there's nothing to digest it and make it meaningful.
Even the image of the moon brought to life through the sunlight is itself the particularity of 'moonlight.' The image and the light are one and the same.
