I would think the idea that one can "take land to support a mate" is agricultural notion of identity and integrity.
Harry On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >
