Who is independent?
“Still waiting for a qualified, independent socio-religio-philo-psychological etc study of this movement & its history. Independent in the sense of non-affiliated. I.e., by people who are not invested or too happy in their object of study.”
When I posted this post on my private page a couple of years ago (which I repostated today as a “memory”, with the text above) I received some criticism.
That time I had written:
“Today, 130 years ago, this man, Martinus Thomsen, was born in a village in Jutland. Poor, not much schooling. He eventually trained as a dairyman.
In his thirties, he had a strong religious experience that would characterize the rest of his life. He began to write, lecture, o paint. A couple of hundred strange pictures (like the one he’s working on here). A Scandinavian “mystic”, one must well call him.
Still, pretty much unknown to the general public. As well to scholars. Only now is there an independent academic research project on its way. A study Of what he actually accomplished, I’ve heard, and of the movement that grew around him. Congrats, Martinus!”
That’s the thing about “independence.” After all, several academic papers have been written about Martinus and his “cosmology”, which have been approved, at various academic levels. A-, B-, C-, Master’s level. Yes, recently there was even a doctoral thesis. However, as far as I know, exclusively by supporters. But aren’t these works independent, after all? At least at a higher level, there are rigorous requirements on the text to be of good quality?
And I still feel like there’s something I’m missing because I’m going to think it can be really interesting.
There has something to do with Martinus Thomsen’s own claims – and how he is thus perceived, worshipped within the movement – to be a perfect individual with infallible knowledge, which I find difficult to see that it does not risk “messing it up”.
Someone objected at the time, that e.g. psychoanalysts write about Sigmund Freud, is that background disqualifying as well? Isn’t their in-depth knowledge of history, theories, etc., rather an asset?
But I don’t buy that. No one (or at least very few, and those probably enjoys no great respect) would claim that Freud was infallible, incorruptible, a perfect man who recorded the Truth in his books.
Am I being too harsh?