James, thank you for Your sensible comment. I did not know about the term 'allodium'. looking after the term, I read: ... True allodial title is rare, with most property ownership in the common law world—primarily, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland—described more properly as being in fee simple. ...
As a comment, being 'free' in the continental sense is mostly ascribed to communities, like Nueremberg (Nürnberg), which reads like that: ... In 1219, Frederick II granted the Großen Freiheitsbrief (Great Letter of Freedom), including town rights, Reichsfreiheit (or Imperial immediacy), the privilege to mint coins and an independent customs policy, almost wholly removing the city from the purview of the burgraves. ... So the people there were 'free' in the sense that they were mainly subject to municipial rule. So interspersed in the empire were free cities, famously the italian ones like Venice or Florence or the Hanse-towns from Hamburg up to Riga, and free citizens, mainly trademen, which delegated some of their whealth to the truly creative people. Which is my main point, that it were not the holders of whealth and power, but those they chose as a proxy to their own lack of creativity, which they seemed to be aware of, sort of a division of labor. A different strain would be the monks in the monasteries, which preserved their 'freedom' in their own peculiar manner. I must confess that I have only rudimentary knowledge about the rise of british 'yeomen', which somehow must have been arisen from Oxford and Cambridge (1150 to 1300) , which not simply were holders of power, but men of knowledge. This has been a paneuropean phenomenon, increasingly generating a counterweight to traditional nobility. Anyway, interesting topic. all the best Guenther ________________________________ Von: James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> An: Guenter Wildgruber <gwildgru...@ymail.com> CC: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Gesendet: 22:42 Samstag, 26.Mai 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR The definition of "Yeoman" is at issue. Its modern degeneration has virtually nothing to do with the original notion. Basically there was, once upon a time, recognition of the foundation of civilization -- primarily because civilization had only recently arisen. This is particularly true of northern Europeans who remained, very deliberately, uncivil until late JudeoChristianization. Part of the resistance to civilization is that young lovers cannot nest simply by virtue of the young man forcefully challenging a "noble" owner of some land and taking land necessary to support a mate and their children together without paying "fees". The answer arrived at by wiser men than today's monied class -- men who were involved in building civilization from the ground up rather than coming in and simply taking credit -- was a recognition of homesteads as inviolable. Indeed, this is the origin of the Norse concept of the allodium -- the basis of allodial, as opposed to feudal, law. This all gets back to individual integrity: When a young man is "broken" by civilization in order to provide for and protect the formation of his family, more is broken than a mere "uncivil spirit". In a very real sense, he is alienated from himself -- he is incapable of what you call "conviction" except in the travesties visited upon his mind by government and religion. On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Guenter Wildgruber <gwildgru...@ymail.com> wrote: _______________________________ >Von: James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Paracelsus whose motto was: "Let no man belong to another that can belong to >himself." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >James, > >I understand this as a typical statement of a renaissance mind. >But: Paracelsus was not a Yeoman. >He was driven by his convictions. > >The same could be said by Erasmus, Gutenberg, Luther or Duerer. (sorry for the bias. Lets add Cervantes, who spent a significant part of his life in prison.) > >See Luther: >"Here I stand. I can do no other" >Cervantes was more reflective, BEFORE Descartes, btw. >This is the 1500's, an axis time, as they say. > > >My point is that there is no necessary connection of being a 'Yeoman' and being a constituent of advancing societal matters, being them scientific or other. > >If one associates them with leisure and material resources, they utterley >spoiled it most of the time. >See the british 'Yeomen' in the countryside nowadays. >They rent their castles, or as London-city billionaires own a football-club but do not sponsor a research institution, not even talking about doing creative research on their own , as eg Lavoisier did. >Nowadays we have young Facebook/Zuckerberg following the footsteps of >Oracle/Ellison. >An easy role-model. Make tons of money. Buy a big yacht. Some fancy houses. >Add some power plus bullshit theses. >Give the finger to everybody else. Here you are. >Apple/Jobs ist just too difficult. > >Leisure primarily is just that: leisure. >It is the interests of the moneyed class of its time, which directs society at >large, and its talents in particular. > >It depends on the societal value system, what to do with it, especially, what those people, having it, think merits them some additional status within their tribe. > >See eg Bourdieu 'La Distinction' >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Distinction > >Maybe I sound too much like a class warrior for Your taste. >I'm not. >I am just disgusted by the preferences of our contemporary 'leaders'. > >But maybe I'm misunderstanding what You are trying to say. > >Plus: I digress. This is probably utterly uninteresting to the vortex-crowd. > >Guenther >
