Galileo Figero.
Galileo and Figero. Both were innocent, creative outsiders, persecuted by the times. In a sort of way. Is that why "Galileo Figaro" became the name of the main character in Queen's, "Bohemian Rhapsody?"
Maybe. But, who knows whither "Figaro" derived - because it was a name used in several old Operas. It's a fictional name, usually, or a nickname. (It was used by Spanish satirist, Mariano José de Larra, before he shot himself. I think a movie centering on him might be good. He was pretty important in Spain).
Alternately, it is very possible that, "Galileo Figaro," in the song derived from a common Latin saying, "Galileo figuro magnifico," which means "Magnify the Galilean's image," with "Galilean" in this case referring not to the Italian astronomer but to Jesus Christ. That phrase is followed immediately by the line "I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me," so perhaps it's a reference to the narrator's disbelief that he can be saved by a higher power. - [source]. This all seems better than a coincidence. In fact, it MUST be the explanation, because, in the song, a "chorus" then joins in, with, "magnifico!!"
Whether or not the first hypotheses might also have been a factor - which it might have been - reading about Galileo is pretty interesting. One may forget that he was a serious pioneer in the tradition of civil disobedience, or non-cooperation, as also exemplified by Socrates, Jesus, Thoreau, Gandhi, MLK, Assange, and others. [Socrates, may not have refused to drink the hemlock, but he had an idea that all citizens must adhere to the State's will, otherwise the ("democratic") State's authority could thereby begin to collapse, and, actually, this is not such a crazy idea, considering how abusive or irrational a throng of violently anarchistic "democrats" can become. We have since learnt that the tendency of most states is in gaining more power and control, and democracies don't really exist. But, regarding Socrates, his deference to the State could be seen as part of an act of civil disobedience, alligned with the people in general].
Galileo Galilei is usually thought of as recanting, but he actually mainly stood up for what his eye told him were the Truth, and therefore he endured a lot of punishment/s. I believe he agreed not to publish more on certain subjects, and when the religious/judgmental authorities insisted that he admit that the Earth does NOT revolve around the Sun, he seems to have fudged, and then said, "E pur si muove!" (And yet, it moves!")
Was he doubly convinced by simply looking up at the clouds that blew across the sky? That would be ironic, sort of. I once insisted to my Mommy that it was obvious that the Earth moves, (from this evidence). But, it's not a completely fallacious argument, because the rotations of the planet, plus the daily influences of the sun, actually do influence the winds to blow, don't you know?
But, looking back at Galileo's studies and constructive imagination, it is really astonishing how much he got done, given the stultifying times. And it was mainly the whole religious idea, that the planets revolve around us and our planet, which got him into trouble. Otherwise, his successful challenges to some ideas of Aristotle, etc., were quite impressive. And now, a word or two from our Wiki -
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy" [lol!] (though he was never formally charged with heresy, relieving him of facing corporal punishment),[146] namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.
In view of Galileo's rather implausible denial that he had ever held Copernican ideas after 1616 or ever intended to defend them in the Dialogue, his final interrogation, in July 1633, concluded with his being threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth, but he maintained his denial despite the threat.
What was going on, that society - especially the central structure of ideological authority and control - were sooooo stubbourn in wanting to hear anyone claim a truth alternate to its own?
Well, this has been a subject on which I have been writing for some time, especially lately: People refuse to see, or even look for, any possibility of alternatives or change - or even danger. Authorities base their decisions not on rationality, fairness or real justice, but on politics, ego and psycho-superstition, or fear. But, at the same time, new technologies just happen to be expanding at a crazy new pace. Somewhere along the way, Society is pushed into a phase shift in thinking, or s scientific paradigm shift. And this shift usually pivots according to the leadership, insight and defiance of a few good people, often scientists, who become the tip of a spear for real socio-economic revolution. (So much for Hegel's and Marx's elementary logics of dialectics).
Just by coming out with evidence happening to expose the Kings as wearing no clothes, or of behind behind a curtain, or of being complete idiots - always the last to know, when something truly real comes through. Something like a herd of black swans. But, never discount this important fact: By this point, those in control are largely there because they are obsessed with control and power. They are crazies, who climbed their way to the top of a pyramid of CULT. And this is why even judges, during such critical times, make their decisions more and more based on personal emotions and POLITICS, rather than on humanity. The fear of losing power to the seemingly unpredictable masses, rising, in and of itself can be enough for them to behave like ruthless tyrants. Defending really stupid ideas and people.
And everything is turned inside out, and upside down, society being required to keep trying to place a square peg into a circular hole. Becoming more and more convinced of lies, like, 2 + 2 = 4... Until it all falls down.
Non-Cooperation.
Ed Dowd: "We are being ruled by idiots."
Next - hopefully - I might tell you of a silly dream I had last night.
Maybe. But, who knows whither "Figaro" derived - because it was a name used in several old Operas. It's a fictional name, usually, or a nickname. (It was used by Spanish satirist, Mariano José de Larra, before he shot himself. I think a movie centering on him might be good. He was pretty important in Spain).
Alternately, it is very possible that, "Galileo Figaro," in the song derived from a common Latin saying, "Galileo figuro magnifico," which means "Magnify the Galilean's image," with "Galilean" in this case referring not to the Italian astronomer but to Jesus Christ. That phrase is followed immediately by the line "I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me," so perhaps it's a reference to the narrator's disbelief that he can be saved by a higher power. - [source]. This all seems better than a coincidence. In fact, it MUST be the explanation, because, in the song, a "chorus" then joins in, with, "magnifico!!"
Whether or not the first hypotheses might also have been a factor - which it might have been - reading about Galileo is pretty interesting. One may forget that he was a serious pioneer in the tradition of civil disobedience, or non-cooperation, as also exemplified by Socrates, Jesus, Thoreau, Gandhi, MLK, Assange, and others. [Socrates, may not have refused to drink the hemlock, but he had an idea that all citizens must adhere to the State's will, otherwise the ("democratic") State's authority could thereby begin to collapse, and, actually, this is not such a crazy idea, considering how abusive or irrational a throng of violently anarchistic "democrats" can become. We have since learnt that the tendency of most states is in gaining more power and control, and democracies don't really exist. But, regarding Socrates, his deference to the State could be seen as part of an act of civil disobedience, alligned with the people in general].
Galileo Galilei is usually thought of as recanting, but he actually mainly stood up for what his eye told him were the Truth, and therefore he endured a lot of punishment/s. I believe he agreed not to publish more on certain subjects, and when the religious/judgmental authorities insisted that he admit that the Earth does NOT revolve around the Sun, he seems to have fudged, and then said, "E pur si muove!" (And yet, it moves!")
Was he doubly convinced by simply looking up at the clouds that blew across the sky? That would be ironic, sort of. I once insisted to my Mommy that it was obvious that the Earth moves, (from this evidence). But, it's not a completely fallacious argument, because the rotations of the planet, plus the daily influences of the sun, actually do influence the winds to blow, don't you know?
But, looking back at Galileo's studies and constructive imagination, it is really astonishing how much he got done, given the stultifying times. And it was mainly the whole religious idea, that the planets revolve around us and our planet, which got him into trouble. Otherwise, his successful challenges to some ideas of Aristotle, etc., were quite impressive. And now, a word or two from our Wiki -
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy" [lol!] (though he was never formally charged with heresy, relieving him of facing corporal punishment),[146] namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.
In view of Galileo's rather implausible denial that he had ever held Copernican ideas after 1616 or ever intended to defend them in the Dialogue, his final interrogation, in July 1633, concluded with his being threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth, but he maintained his denial despite the threat.
What was going on, that society - especially the central structure of ideological authority and control - were sooooo stubbourn in wanting to hear anyone claim a truth alternate to its own?
Well, this has been a subject on which I have been writing for some time, especially lately: People refuse to see, or even look for, any possibility of alternatives or change - or even danger. Authorities base their decisions not on rationality, fairness or real justice, but on politics, ego and psycho-superstition, or fear. But, at the same time, new technologies just happen to be expanding at a crazy new pace. Somewhere along the way, Society is pushed into a phase shift in thinking, or s scientific paradigm shift. And this shift usually pivots according to the leadership, insight and defiance of a few good people, often scientists, who become the tip of a spear for real socio-economic revolution. (So much for Hegel's and Marx's elementary logics of dialectics).
Just by coming out with evidence happening to expose the Kings as wearing no clothes, or of behind behind a curtain, or of being complete idiots - always the last to know, when something truly real comes through. Something like a herd of black swans. But, never discount this important fact: By this point, those in control are largely there because they are obsessed with control and power. They are crazies, who climbed their way to the top of a pyramid of CULT. And this is why even judges, during such critical times, make their decisions more and more based on personal emotions and POLITICS, rather than on humanity. The fear of losing power to the seemingly unpredictable masses, rising, in and of itself can be enough for them to behave like ruthless tyrants. Defending really stupid ideas and people.
And everything is turned inside out, and upside down, society being required to keep trying to place a square peg into a circular hole. Becoming more and more convinced of lies, like, 2 + 2 = 4... Until it all falls down.
Non-Cooperation.
Ed Dowd: "We are being ruled by idiots."
Next - hopefully - I might tell you of a silly dream I had last night.