Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jens W. Pedersen's avatar

When I read it I can’t help but compare it to Martinus and there are a lot of similarities.

Martinus is not that systematic and careful when it comes to his use of words, though. He does not really define words. He mostly just uses them and we are more or less expected to get the meaning from the reading. Now, I am not being quite fair to him, I am exaggerating in order to emphasize my point. It’s also important to state that he was not writing for an academic purpose. He was also not an academic himself, very far from actually because he was rather unread.

If you like to dig into his background, then he introduces himself and his mission in this article: https://www.martinus.dk/en/online-library/ttt/index.php?mode=artikelopslag&art=1807

You seem to kind of make a system of words, right? And so you are very careful about defining words and using them in the proper way. So, that seems to be a marked difference.

When it comes to the points you are making, I find very little contradiction to what Martinus is saying.

For instance, when you talk about "Reality" not being "subject to birth and death, nor to beginning and ending", and so forth. And "Unreality" being those things that are "subject to creation and destruction". All of that is exactly the same as Martinus says.

There may be parts of it, though, that I don’t quite understand because you are using the words differently from Martinus. Thus, there may be more differences that are not obvious to me at this point.

For instance, Martinus also talks a lot about intuition, and according to him intuition is at it highest in "the divine world" where we are supposed to be as one with God and each other. There is a directness and ultimateness of experience there. According to Martinus we don’t have very much intuition in the animal kingdom, it’s kind of dormant here but on the rise for us humans. However, it still has its place in our lives because it’s "the energy of intuition" that we feel when we have an orgasm. So, that’s actually an overshadowing of God right there in the sexual climax. However, Martinus also says that intuition is an ability to automatically analyse a subject, so that we get conclusions without needing to do any calculations ourselves. Thus, intuition is rather a broad phenomenon in his view. It sounds like what you are writing but I am not sure!?

There is one point that seems to be contrary to Martinus. You write that: "In reality, there is no individual free choice". Contrary to that, Martinus says that we do have free will. I don't quite remember how he argues that but he teaches the idea of karma and so, in his view, our destiny is solely of our own making.

Expand full comment
Kaiser Basileus's avatar

Trivial Realism - we sense the world more or less as it is bc truth is ultimately pragmatic and we couldn't have evolved otherwise.

https://kaiserbasileus.substack.com/p/metaphysics-in-a-nutshell

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts