coining up a new wordplay pun

[froggie]

since illiminati seems resembling to enlightened, but since illuminati are considered generally repressive i thought it would be better to shift the connotation of resemblance from 'illuminati' to 'illuminasty', so as to make the concept more in line with their general conceptions and therefore less confusing

Edited August 4, 2009 by froggie

[Vajrahridaya]

since illiminati seems resembling to enlightened, but since illuminati are considered generally repressive i thought it would be better to shift the connotation of resemblance from 'illuminati' to 'illuminasty', so as to make the concept more in line with their general conceptions and therefore less confusing

 

 

Your kitties are fantabulously cute Froggie.

[Zhuo Ming-Dao]

I think the core of the problem stems from the fact that the European enlightenment movement of the 1600-1800s used the images of light and enlightenment (illuminatus or illuminati) to describe the act of coming to greater levels understanding regarding the human condition and humane studies. There were many facets of this illumination (artistic, political, societal, philosophical, scientific, literary). The enlightenment movement gave birth to people like Francis Bacon, John Locke, Marry Wollstonecraft, the founding fathers, and many many others, who in turn gave birth to the modern scientific method, feminism, humanism, equality, liberty, and so on. This was the Age of Enlightenment.

 

And like it or not, the Rosicrucians, Freemasons, and Illuminati all played a significant role in offering an environment where there could be a free exchange of ideas without fear of reprisal from local tyrannical governments or an angry church. Without these organizations, it is quiet possible that the enlightenment movement (from which America was born) would never have had the opportunity to build the kind of critical mass that it did.

 

The Illuminati may have had rather strong opinions on the questions of government, but those opinions were actually grounded directly in the idea of the philosopher kings from Plato's Republic. I am not saying that I prefer the idea of a global Republic governed by the most wise and intelligent men alive that is free of war... but some days it does sound like it would work a little smoother than our current tattered democratic republic. The place that I am really opposed to the ancient Illuminati ideals is in their stance against religion, though given their love for reason and science and the pressure that the church put on such ideas at the time, it is perfectly understandable.

[Zhuo Ming-Dao]

Oh, and an Illuminati run government would be built upon the idea of a meritocracy. So instead of being oppressed because of your race, gender, religion, politics, country of origin, caste, or financial class, you would be oppressed based on your intelligence and education - or lack thereof. Specifically, only the intelligent would be allowed to have any governing power. This type of system worked very well in China for thousands of years through the government exam system, which was open to anyone. In pre1900s China, a peasant with no political connections could take a series of tests and rise over a few years to the upper ranks of government. Now compare that to the hundred million dollar beauty pageant we have every four years in the US.

 

Unfortunately, when people think of the Illuminati, they tend to only think about the "power behind the throne" style of governance, because that was the technique that the Bavarian Illuminati used (since they were not in a position to found their own new government).

I think that people tend to get a little uncomfortable when someone tells them that they should submit to a governing body because they are your intellectual superiors. Sometimes it is just easier to swallow the divine right of kings

 

 

 

Edit: I really hope that I don't come off sounding like I support intellectual elitism! I was just trying to give another perspective.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Zhuo Ming-Dao

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. Yes, I know you are being punny but I do see some wisdon in the words.

 

Be well!

[froggie]

Actually that's a really good post.

The Bavarian style seem like it hasn't worked out somehow, but it's probably true that it would be better to have someone doing things who is really good at it than it would be to have someone who is not good at it do it. Intelligence is worth a lot ''on top'' i guess, but compassion would be a pretty good combination with it also, and a lot of equality too. I think these can all work together.

 

Kings and so were probably worse indeed. No equality at all and a lot of oppression from fear tactics etc. ?

 

Oh, and an Illuminati run government would be built upon the idea of a meritocracy. So instead of being oppressed because of your race, gender, religion, politics, country of origin, caste, or financial class, you would be oppressed based on your intelligence and education - or lack thereof. Specifically, only the intelligent would be allowed to have any governing power. This type of system worked very well in China for thousands of years through the government exam system, which was open to anyone. In pre1900s China, a peasant with no political connections could take a series of tests and rise over a few years to the upper ranks of government. Now compare that to the hundred million dollar beauty pageant we have every four years in the US.

 

Unfortunately, when people think of the Illuminati, they tend to only think about the "power behind the throne" style of governance, because that was the technique that the Bavarian Illuminati used (since they were not in a position to found their own new government).

I think that people tend to get a little uncomfortable when someone tells them that they should submit to a governing body because they are your intellectual superiors. Sometimes it is just easier to swallow the divine right of kings

Edit: I really hope that I don't come off sounding like I support intellectual elitism! I was just trying to give another perspective.