Animal nature

Animal nature is, in Martinus' terminology, the animal side of terrestrial human consciousness, rooted in the instinct of self-preservation. It appears in forms such as egoism, jealousy, envy, covetousness and destructive action. Martinus describes the terrestrial human being as a transitional being, in whom animal tendencies coexist with the beginnings of a higher, humane consciousness. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

The animal basis of behaviour

Martinus describes animal behaviour as rooted in the instinct of self-preservation. In the animal kingdom, survival depends on physical power, protection of the organism and the ability to obtain food. For many animals this means killing other animals, so the struggle for life is organised around power and the capacity to pursue, overcome and defend oneself. ^[4] ^[5]

In Martinus' analysis, this condition is connected with the dominance of the killing principle. The energy of gravity is dominant in the animal's consciousness, together with instinct, primitive feeling and a smaller element of intelligence. This combination produces a mode of existence in which killing is, to a great extent, necessary for maintaining life. ^[6]

Animal nature includes tendencies that place one's own survival, advantage or power above the welfare of other beings. Martinus names hatred, anger, bitterness, persecution, slander, jealousy, envy and covetousness, together with destructive and murderous actions, as expressions of the animal mentality in human beings. ^[7]

Animal nature and consciousness

Martinus distinguishes ordinary animals from terrestrial human beings by their degree of self-awareness. The ordinary animal's consciousness is directed primarily outward, towards food, mating, offspring, danger and other conditions of self-preservation. It can experience pain, hunger and thirst, but Martinus says that it does not consciously reflect on its own identity as an “I”. Its bodily functions and many of its needs operate as automatic or instinctive functions. ^[8]

The terrestrial human being has begun to discover itself. It can say “I” and distinguish its organism through expressions such as “my organism”, but this self-awareness is initially limited mainly to the physical organism. Martinus therefore describes human self-consciousness as being at its first, weak beginnings: the human being has gone beyond the pure animal state without yet having conscious knowledge of the immortal self behind the body. ^[9]

Martinus' distinction is primarily mental rather than physical. The terrestrial human organism remains, in principle, an animal organism, while the decisive new element is the developing consciousness. Martinus identifies the difference between the animal and the human being with the growth of sympathetic faculties that can extend beyond mating, offspring and self-preservation. ^[10] ^[11]

The terrestrial human being as a transitional being

The terrestrial human being is not, in Martinus' view, a finished human being. It is in transition from the animal kingdom towards the real human kingdom, and consequently expresses both animal and human tendencies. The animal nature is the part inherited from the earlier stage; the emerging human nature is expressed through increasing intelligence, knowledge, feeling, creativity and humane conduct. ^[12] ^[13] ^[14]

This transitional condition means that intelligence may be combined with still-inhumane feeling. Martinus describes intelligence as capable of turning hateful feeling into refined acts of vengeance, but also of giving logical form to humane feeling. ^[15]

Martinus compares this unfinished state to the image of the Sphinx: an animal body with a human head. The image expresses that terrestrial human beings possess abilities above the ordinary animal plane, but can still act in an “animal” way in areas where their humane faculties have not developed sufficiently. ^[16]

The inner conflict

An ordinary animal is governed by its instinct and therefore does not, in Martinus' account, experience the same conflict with itself. The terrestrial human being is different because a new, opposing tendency is developing: resistance to egoism and a capacity for unselfish sympathy. This creates an inner struggle between the old animal drive for self-preservation and the emerging humane consciousness. ^[17] ^[18]

This conflict can appear as suffering, regret and pangs of conscience. A person may act from an animal drive and later experience such actions as unworthy. Martinus connects this dissatisfaction and self-reproach with the growth of the unselfish or human psyche. ^[19]

Martinus also warns that responding to an unfinished person's animal behaviour with hatred reveals the same unfinishedness in the one who hates. ^[20]

The transformation of animal nature

Martinus describes the transformation from animal to human as a process of growth, not as a simple decision or act of will. The ability to love one's neighbour as oneself develops gradually through evolution and experience. In its completed form, this development becomes a natural mode of existence characterised by universal love. ^[21]

The decisive change is therefore the development of the sympathetic faculties. The animal nature is characterised by egoism and a restricted sympathy, while the emerging human nature extends concern beyond one's mate, offspring and self. The human being becomes increasingly able to act for the benefit of others, even where this conflicts with immediate self-preservation. ^[22]

This development changes the human being's relation to violence. Martinus holds that the animal must kill in order to live, whereas the evolving human being is no longer in the same vital situation and is moving towards the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. He connects this change with neighbourly love. ^[23]

The goal is the “real” or perfect human being, whose intelligence, feeling and conduct are harmonised with the law of love. In this perspective, animal nature is a temporary stage in the wider evolution of the living being. Resistance to egoism and the development of sympathy lead the being towards the perfect human state. ^[24] ^[25] ^[26]

Terminology and source language

In the English passages, Martinus uses both “animal nature” and “animal mentality” for this concept. ^[27] ^[28] A Danish-only article, Den mentale kursændring, uses the corresponding Danish term dyrementalitet and describes it alongside a beginning human mentality. ^[29]

References

[1] Livets Bog 1, section 171

[2] Verdensreligion og verdenspolitik, section 4.9 (*)

[3] Verdensreligion og verdenspolitik, section 4.12 (*)

[4] Verdensreligion og verdenspolitik, section 4.10 (*)

[5] Livets Bog 1, section 171

[6] The Eternal World Picture 3, section 30.4

[7] Verdensreligion og verdenspolitik, section 4.12 (*)

[8] Livets Bog 2, section 449

[9] Livets Bog 2, section 450

[10] Livets Bog 5, section 1753

[11] Livets Bog 5, section 1765

[12] Livets Bog 1, section 171

[13] The Eternal World Picture 1, section 4.2

[14] The Eternal World Picture 3, section 31.1

[15] The Eternal World Picture 4, section 37.7

[16] Verdensreligion og verdenspolitik, section 4.8 (*)

[17] Livets Bog 5, section 1765

[18] Livets Bog 5, section 1768

[19] Livets Bog 5, section 1767

[20] Verdensreligion og verdenspolitik, section 4.12 (*)

[21] The Eternal World Picture 3, section 33.2

[22] Livets Bog 5, section 1753

[23] Verdensreligion og verdenspolitik, section 4.10 (*)

[24] The Eternal World Picture 1, section 4.2

[25] The Eternal World Picture 3, section 33.2

[26] Livets Bog 5, section 1768

[27] Verdensreligion og verdenspolitik, section 4.9 (*)

[28] Verdensreligion og verdenspolitik, section 4.12 (*)

[29] Article 1690

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]