Creativity and the Cross: Martinus, Bergson, and Whitehead in Dialogue

The essays we discussed by Martinus include:

* Time, Space, Eternity and Immortality

* About Myself, My Mission, and Its Significance

We began by triangulating Martinus’ spiritual science with Whitehead’s and Bergson’s speculative philosophies. I sketched Whitehead’s dipolar process theology: a primordial, valuative, mental pole and a consequent, relational, physical pole, each arising from the maximally generic, ultimate category of Creativity. This can be loosely mapped to Martinus’s trinitarian X-structure (X1 the eternal I, X2 the creative power, X3 the created/experienced). Karsten Jensen noted both Martinus and Whitehead articulate an organismic rather than mechanistic cosmology, and envision a Godhead who both creates and undergoes experience in mutual dependence with creatures.

From there Pedro Brea introduced Bergson’s approach, emphasizing the evolution from instinct and intelligence toward intuition, which is not anti-intellectual, but intelligence refined into conscious participation in life’s flow. This was then framed by Karsten in terms of Martinus’ vertical/horizontal “cross”: vertically, spiritual scientific intuition discloses the unmanifest source; horizontally, natural science traces the living hierarchies from micro- to macrocosm. Karsten added Martinus’ “cosmic faculty psychology” (instinct, gravity, feeling, intelligence, intuition, memory) and the claim that intuition ripens through a harmonization of feeling and intelligence, what Martinus calls “intellectualized feeling,” i.e., universal love.

We then discussed the ethical stakes. Love as the cosmos’ basic tone; suffering as the hard teacher of compassion; reason, at its best, as imaginative insight (Wordsworth) rather than mere calculative understanding. I connected this with Plotinus’ account of the Platonic ascent/descent (myth and dialectic), and Karsten brought in Whitehead’s Function of Reason: speculative method, internal/external coherence, and a cosmology testable against experience. Karsten stressed Martinus’ openness to critique and his call to bring spiritual science into public dialogue.

Finally, Karsten touched on the erotic/creative polarity (Martinus’ “sexual principle”) and his “eternal world picture.” He also acknowledged the live tension between Martinus’ seemingly cyclical schemata and Whitehead’s insistence on genuine novelty at all levels, natural and divine, which may be an area where process thought can fruitfully pressure-test Martinus. We closed with a discussion of Simone Weil’s “decreation,” Bergson’s universalizing love, and Whitehead’s “initial aim” present in every moment: the kingdom is at hand if we can clear away our identification with a false, separate self enough to consent to it. I left grateful for a conversation that didn’t collapse scholarship into critical skepticism nor relate to mystical clairvoyance with blind credulity, but let both ways of knowing mutually refine one another.

Get full access to ☿Footnotes²Plato☀☾ at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe