[TRINPsite, 58.40.7-62.03.1, mvvm.net/En/MNI/BoS1-6.txt ] [Plain text file of section files at www.trinp.org/MNI/BoS/*/(*/)*.HTM. Additions and revisions in the original *.HTM files have been incorporated until 58.42.3, with the exception of section S423 (The neutral-inclusive model of a building), which was updated on 62.03.1. This file is not part of the digital Model, as it may not be up to date and does not contain special symbols and fonts.] MODEL OF NEUTRAL-INCLUSIVITY by Vinsent Nandi, 41-62 aSWW BOOK OF SYMBOLS [all chapters] 1 THE REPRESENTATION OF NEUTRAL-INCLUSIVITY 1.1 INSTRUMENTALISM, FUNDAMENTALISM AND SYMBOLISM The ideological approach of this Model is predominantly instrumentalistic in the Book of Instruments, predominantly fundamentalistic in the Book of Fundamentals and predominantly symbolistic in the Book of Symbols. By instrumentalism we then understand the doctrine that certain ideas and theories are instruments of action --also of further theorizing-- and that their usefulness determines their truth, or their theoretical value. The Model of Neutral-Inclusivity is by no means instrumentalistic in that it would consider true what would be ultimately useful or satisfying to believe: it does not espouse such a 'pragmatic' theory of truth. It is only instrumentalistic with respect to the instruments which are useful to arrive at the ideological foundation laid in the Book of Fundamentals. These instruments are concepts and theories which do not have to be entirely adequate and true, or the sole feasible ones. What is important is that they are (believed to be) the most helpful instruments to explain the source and scope of the theories and objectives put forward in the Book of Fundamentals. Obviously, none of the instrumental theories or ideas ought to be false in the sense of being contrary to established fact, or of being incoherent, or more incoherent (and implausible) than any alternative theory or idea. The Book of Fundamentals determines our ultimate denominational objectives, and whatever reasonable theoretical means are best to attain these have been adopted in the Book of Instruments, or may be adopted instead. The theories and ideas in that book have no independent value. The importance of the Book of Instruments is therefore mostly relative in that there may be other, better or more correct means to arrive at the Model's central destination. By fundamentalism (in a normist sense) we shall understand the doctrine that certain theories and ideas must be interpreted literally and that they are true or correct and/or useful by themselves. The Model of Neutral- Inclusivity is fundamentalistic with regard to the catenical interpretation of nonpropositional reality and the veridicalist interpretation of the principle of truth, and with regard to the norm of neutrality and the norm of inclusivity. The catenical theory may be looked at in an instrumentalist way tho insofar as a different theoretical approach would not affect the substance of neutralism or neutral-inclusivism. This substance is to be found in the Book of Fundamentals, the heart of the Model. It is in this book that our body of disciplinary thought is established as a paradigm or paradigm-to- be. The Book of Fundamentals supplies the minimum constituents without which the DNI would not be a neutral-inclusivist denominational doctrine and part of the Ananorm. By symbolism we shall understand the use of symbols, particularly when expressing the invisible or intangible by means of visible or tangible or different linguistic representations. From the theoretical denominational point of view these symbols are neither instrumental nor fundamental to the development of the doctrine, however great their import may be from the artistic or practical standpoint. The Model is symbolistic with regard to the generation and use of symbols, precisely because it does not consider symbols instrumentally necessary or fundamental. Whereas in religious, theocentrist ideologies 'fundamentalism' is characterized by a strict and obligatory, unrelenting adherence to, and literal interpretation of, denominational systems of symbols --as non-supernaturalists would call it--, in the DNI fundamentalism stands for what is fundamental to the doctrine as distinct from what is ('merely') symbolic. Such does not mean that neutral- inclusivist fundamentalism would be antisymbolic or literalistic: the symbolism of the DNI itself could then never have come into being. Our doctrine as a whole is presentationally inclusive. That is, it allows the expression of neutral- inclusive thoughts and feelings thru symbols, but it does not command so. While the present book will supply some generative principles of the DNI's symbolism, such symbolism is not required for the individual adherent to be able to live under the neutral-inclusive Norm. Yet, it is required for the doctrine itself in order to be, and to function as, a denominational doctrine. It was argued in section 2.2.1 of the Book of Fundamentals that both literal communication and communication by means of nonliteral or nonlinguistic symbols should be treated in their own right. But it was also argued there that denominational symbols can only acquire a proper meaning in combination with a more or less literal system of communication. That is why symbolism with respect to the DNI or the Ananorm is not a choice for Ananormative symbols instead of what is fundamental to the doctrine but in addition to what is fundamental to it. When denominational practises are not only symbolic (or supernaturalistic) but also formalized, people speak of "rituals" and "ritual symbolism". This formalization is a matter of concern, for in the ritual symbolism of religious ideologies processes of disintegration and degeneration have not been uncommon in which the nonsymbolic and the symbolic components of the denominational system in question developed into two separate systems. The reason for this was that the ritual and other symbols did not reflect the same values as those of the nonsymbolic original anymore. The adherents of such ideologies did thus in the course of history become more and more sidetracked into a completely meaningless observance of a dotty and dusty ritualism formulated by the priests (instead of by the author(s) or early teacher(s) of the doctrine). The influence of those priests and the caste, religious organization or temple society they belonged to led to decay several times. New denominational doctrines were developed in the past for the sole purpose of restoring the original norms and values with which an antiquated ritualism and a fusty religious hierarchy had lost all contact. There is no or little danger that the symbols to be presented in this book will be similarly responsible for an alienation from the fundamental values of neutral and inclusive thought. There would be such a risk in the use of ritual symbols, if they were part of obligatory ceremonial acts. Those giving themselves up to the formalized observance of such rituals would then probably start losing sight of the essentials of the weltanschauung. In the DNI such obligatory ritualism is not only nonexistent, in this veridicalist doctrine rituals or other forms of symbolism cannot be substituted for fundamental thought and action or nonaction in the first place. Just as activating neutralism must include everything of nonactivating neutralism but not (necessarily) the other way round, so symbolist neutralism must include everything of fundamentalist neutralism altho not (necessarily) the other way round. When considering both the distinction between fundamentalist and symbolist neutralism, and between nonactivating and activating neutralism, the activating-symbolist variant is clearly the 'strongest' or most far-reaching one of the DNI, whereas the nonactivating- fundamentalist variant is the 'weakest' or least exacting one. The activating- fundamentalist and nonactivating-symbolist variants lie somewhere in between. 1.2 THE NEED AND SIGNIFICANCE OF SYMBOLS 1.2.1 THE PRESENTATIVE VERSUS THE REPRESENTATIVE 1.2.1.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE SYMBOL OF SYMBOLS The highest symbol, the symbol of symbols, of the neutral-inclusive Norm is the all-neutral supreme being. No-one shall honor or dishonor those who recognize the symbol of symbols, and no-one shall dishonor or honor those who do not recognize the symbol of symbols. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The psychological and sociological need of a universal, cosmic frame of reference can be satisfied in a direct, 'presentative', way or in an indirect, 'representative' or symbolic, way. A presentative system relates things and events directly to one another and to certain combinations of existing or fictitious matters as they are or are believed to be in themselves. In a representative system things are not so much important for what they are (believed to be), but for what they represent. In such a system things and events are related to one or more symbols which reflect the same ideas and values as the presentative system. Because the underlying ideas and values are the same, a representative system is not irrational and counterargumentative but rather nonrational and nonargumentative. The addition of symbolic entities or different forms of symbolism to the fundamental frame of reference may not satisfy the intellectual component of the human need of a (veridicalist) worldview in the way direct presentation does, it will provide a basis for the satisfaction of human feelings without having to yield to metaphysical or theoretical put-offs and exclusivist inconsistences. The satisfaction of the need of a descriptive or factual-modal, presentative frame of reference is what could be called "the informative function of denominationalism" (or "of ideology" in general); the satisfaction of the need of a normative, presentative system is then its 'imperative function'; and the satisfaction of the need of a symbolic, representative system, its 'emotive function'. (These functions have already been discussed in I.6.1.2.) To deny the need and significance of the direct presentation of not only factual and modal conditions but also of norms, would be irrational and testify to abnegational literalism or aggrandizemental symbolic exclusivism. On the other hand, it would testify as much to presentational exism if the need and significance of the re-presentation of factual, modal and normative conditions thru symbols were denied. In our case this is the need not only of the presentation of neutral-inclusivity as set out in the Book of Fundamentals but also the need of the representation of neutral- inclusivity. If a human denominational doctrine or ideology is devoid of any meaningful symbolism and confines itself to what is considered fundamental or rational, it is human individuals who are bound to become themselves the idolized symbols of such a denominational doctrine or ideology. Those human individuals may be, for example, the originator of the doctrine in question, the founder(s) of the first or largest organization of that doctrine or a latter-day adherent who is believed or claimed to have been much more intelligent, artistic or virtuous than the average one. Because of the lack of nonpersonal or person-neutral symbols an ideology without a symbol- generating faculty, but with a considerable number of adherents nevertheless, will tend to degenerate more and more into a cult of individual exclusivism. Even an egalitarian doctrine can thus give rise to the idolization, if not deification, of a human being. It is not hard to find examples of ideologies, poor in meaningful symbols, of which the exponents have named one building or prize after the other for a particular person or member of a small, exclusive group of persons --or should we say "men"? Such onomastic exclusivism proves that the need of symbols (also nonlinguistic ones) does exist, and that our own doctrine must be capable of providing the deductive, heuristic, creative and other means to satisfy this need in an inclusivist manner. 1.2.2 SYMBOLS AND THE MENTAL OR SPIRITUAL The popular distinction between what is termed "mental", "spiritual" or "psych(olog)ical" on the one hand and "physical" or "material" on the other is a metaphysical concoction of a number of clearly, or at least more clearly, definable distinctions, such as: mental or personal vs bodily (or physical) abstract (non-spatiotemporal) vs concrete (spatiotemporal) propositional vs nonpropositional cultural vs natural visual (and auditory) vs tactual (gustatory and olfactory) symbolic (representative) vs nonsymbolic (presentative) It is remarkable that human symbolism in ideology and in art is mainly, and often only, visual and auditory so far as the five senses are concerned. Traditionally human beings seem to more closely connect the visual, or visual and auditory, with what is or can be of symbolic significance than they do with respect to the other senses. There is no need for this, however, since symbols can in principle also use the sense of touch, of taste or of smell. The above list of antitheses illustrates how the symbolic and the visual together are drawn into the sphere of the mental and of culture, whereas the presentative and the tactual stay in the sphere of the physical and of nature. At the same time the presentative is associated with the concrete ground-world; and the representative with abstract, propositional reality. Yet, in actual fact, a visual symbol is as 'concrete' as a tactual symbol. Concrete symbols are, perhaps, not propositional, but abstract symbols can be either propositional or nonpropositional. Preferably symbols should not only adequately represent a certain idea or discipline, but have beauty as well. Beauty itself is a concept which is often put on the side of the visual(-auditory), culture (or art), the abstract and the propositional (or literature) with the symbolic. It is traditionally restricted to what is pleasing to the eye or the ear or to what pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit. Esthetics, which is etymologically supposed to deal with all sense perception, tends to deal exclusively or predominantly with the visual. It could be said that the beautiful and esthetic refer to the visual or visual-auditory by definition, but then similar kinds of concept and theory can be developed with regard to the senses of touch, taste and smell. Of course, there are words like nice, fine and delicious which can denote that something is pleasing to one or more of the three other senses. But they are either employed for all senses or associated with what pleasurably exalts the body in particular. For sure, this is not wrong. What is wrong is to suggest that beauty in the visual field would be less physical or spatiotemporal than the experience of a nice feeling in the tactual, or one of the other nonvisual, fields. Such an attitude is not warrantable: if a visual symbol or other thing should look good or be nice to look at, a tactual symbol or other thing should feel good or be nice to touch. Neither symbol or thing is more spiritual or more physical than the other. (Let alone more sexual in that intentionally touching a nice human body would be plain eroticism, whereas intentionally looking at such a body would be pure esthetics.) Maybe something is 'beautiful' when it pleases the sense of sight or hearing. To be attractive, however, it does not only have to please the eyes or the ears, but also to represent something valuable. Beauty covers the presentative aspect of something, but there is also an (often not less) important representational aspect. (If beauty is said to cover both aspects, then being beautiful is not solely a question of pleasing the senses.) The representational aspect becomes most noticeable when the beautiful is expressed by artistic means, for the use of symbols (in the widest sense of the word) is essential to art in particular. Evidently, what applies to beauty and to the senses of sight and hearing, applies to the senses in general, even tho ordinary language may have no analogs of beauty and attractiveness for all five senses. If one does make the distinction between beauty and its analogs on the one hand, and attractiveness and its analogs on the other, and if one wants to associate this with the distinction mental/physical, it is attractiveness and its analogs which have both a physical and a mental or spiritual dimension, regardless of the kind of sense concerned. 1.3 WAYS OF CLASSIFYING SYMBOLS 1.3.1 ON THE BASIS OF MEDIUM, DEDUCTIBILITY AND FUNCTION As said in the previous division there is a tendency in traditional thought to associate the symbolic with the visual-auditory and the spiritual, whereas in actual fact the symbolic need not be visual or auditory, and is not less 'spiritual' when it is not. Now, when speaking of 'visual', 'auditory' and other symbols, we classify them on the basis of medium. But this is merely one way of classifying symbols (or modes of generative symbolism); there are at least four different criterions on the basis of which they can be subdivided, namely: the medium of representation the deductibility of the symbol the symbol's primary function the symbol's ideological acceptability Granted that human beings have usually five senses, the classification on the basis of the medium of representation involved yields five types of symbol. They are, with the corresponding sensory modalities: 1. visual: the sense of sight 2. auditory: the sense of hearing 3. olfactory: the sense of smell 4. tactual: the sense of touch 5. gustatory: the sense of taste Examples of ancient symbols which are not visual-auditory are the burning of incense and the kissing of something which is believed to be holy or sacred. The former symbol is olfactory, the latter one tactual. (Tactual is to be preferred to tactile because of the analogy with visual. Compare also visualize with tactualize.) For all five mediums it must in principle be possible to find or create symbols which can represent neutral-inclusivity in general, or neutrality proper and neutral-directedness in particular. For example, pure water as a neutral liquid which is neither acid nor basic can be used as an ideal gustatory symbol representing neutrality proper or neutral-inclusivity in general. Insofar as the neutrality of water is, or can be, connected with the notion of inclusivity, it is etymologically justifiable to look at and experience water as a 'holy' substance. This must then be understood in a symbolic fashion. To unconditionally believe that water would literally always have a purifying or healing effect is supernaturalism. Water may be suitable as a chemical symbol of neutrality, it does not follow from the norm of neutrality that it should be. Likewise, a symmetrical design, for instance, may very appropriately represent neutrality too, but it cannot be proved in any way that neutrality proper must per se be represented by symmetry even tho it is certain that neutrality proper cannot be represented by asymmetry. The choice of water and something which is symmetrical as neutralist symbols can be defended because of their inherent qualities. Perfect neutrality does indeed appear as symmetry of the purest water. Yet, the choice of water and symmetry as symbols is not an automatical result of the choice of neutrality as a normative value. In other words, the symbolic significance of such elements cannot be deduced from the perfective value of neutrality. Altho it never can in a way, there are considerable gradual differences nevertheless. Some entities (the supreme being in particular) stand on the borderline of the presentative and the symbolic. They have practically the same significance whether viewed from a presentative or from a representative angle. Other entities or elements, like water, only become significant in a symbolist sense because of what they represent, and not so much for what they are. A being like the supreme being is in its representative capacity a fundamental symbol. The deductibility of such a fundamental symbol is maximal. That is why the distinction between fundamental and nonfundamental symbols can be said to be one on the basis of the deductibility of these symbols. In the third chapter it will be discussed in more detail why the supreme being is indeed a fundamental symbol of neutralism. Nonfundamental symbols can be subdivided on the basis of their primary function. At least three types of symbol can be distinguished in this way. They are, with the phenomena or activities with respect to which they play a role: linguistic: the choice and use of words and names emotional: expressions like celebration and mourning ritual: formal acts or series of acts We will treat of linguistic symbolism in the next chapter, and of emotional and ritual symbolism in Chapter Five. The first reason to discuss the linguistic symbols (in Chapter Two) before the fundamental ones (in Chaper Three) is that even fundamental thought has to make use of linguistic symbols for its communication. The second reason is that the different types of symbolism do, of course, occur in combination too, and by treating linguistic symbolism first it is possible to immediately apply this form of symbolism --of generative symbolism in the case of the Ananorm-- to a number of nonlinguistic symbols to be presented in the later chapters. Before doing this tho, we should consider a fourth way of categorizing symbols. 1.3.2 ON THE BASIS OF ACCEPTABILITY It needs no explanation that a symbol typical of the DNI which represents neutral-inclusivity, or the neutral-inclusivistic interpretation of truth and relevance, is for us an acceptable symbol. But, conversely, an acceptable symbol need not per se be a symbol typical of the DNI; it may also be a non- or interdenominational symbol or a symbol which originated in another ideology. Symbols of other ideologies than the DNI are not necessarily incompatible with Ananormative concepts and principles. Partially the symbolism of a different doctrine may more or less accidentally even coincide with one or more aspects of the neutral-inclusive symbolism. Or, the use of a symbol may be acceptable but not the traditional interpretation as taught by such a doctrine. On the basis of acceptability four types of symbol can be distinguished. They are: 1. typical symbols: symbols typical of the DNI or the Ananorm 2. compatible symbols: acceptable symbols which are not typical of the Ananorm 3. antisymbols: unacceptable symbols which are somehow imposed on adherents of the Ananorm 4. nonimposed incompatible symbols: unacceptable symbols which are in no way imposed on adherents of the Ananorm To every symbol to which a positive value is assigned by one ideological group (the in-group) a negative value can be assigned by another ideological group (the out-group). If a symbol is supposed to represent a positive value but is in some way forced upon a person or group for which it has a negative value, then it is an antisymbol for that person or group. Hence, it is the combination of incompatibility and importunity, even when merely psychological, which makes the symbol of another ideology into an antisymbol. A symbol with which we are not unnecessarily and involuntarily confronted need not be experienced as an antisymbol, however much what it stands for may deviate from our own denominational convictions. People for whom a certain symbol represents a positive value, and people who do not care in this respect, cannot judge very well whether this same symbol represents a negative value or not for a person or group adhering to an ideology with another system of symbols. Especially when such a symbol is in some way foisted onto nonadherents, it may, because of the injustice involved, even have a much stronger negative meaning for those upon whom it is imposed than a positive meaning for those who accept the symbolism it forms part of. State religionists, for instance, and people without a denominational belief, often claim that symbols are not important when the matter of the imposition of certain symbols by the state is raised. Yet, they only dare claim this so long as those symbols represent their own or the traditional paradigm. Similarly, they may speak of "the need of empathy in morality" so long as this does not refer to the ability to understand veridicalistic or other nonreligious feelings towards imposed religious symbols. In those countries which do not respect denominational or ideological inclusivity, such as the complete separation of state and religion, it is easy to find examples of antisymbols in the law, the state rituals, the flag, the so-called 'national' anthem, the official days of observance, the money issued, the names given to public buildings and streets, and so on and so forth. In religionist states it is the symbols of one particular religion or set of religions (such as the monotheist ones) which have been adopted by the governmental apparatus itself. By the manner of presenting and perpetuating them officially, those symbols are imposed upon all citizens regardless of the denominational doctrine or ideology these citizens personally sympathize with. In such states all citizens are legally and/or socially forced to directly or indirectly pay respect to the symbolism of one privileged religion or set of religions. The symbol, system of symbols or form of symbolism in question may (and should) therefore acquire a definitely negative connotation: it becomes a symbol of denominational discrimination or exclusivism; perhaps of general, ideological exclusivism; perhaps of nonphysical or general, subanthropic exclusivism; and perhaps even of exclusivism in general, particularly for members of the relevantistic community. In countries or regions where there is a complete, fundamental and symbolic, separation of state and religion or comprehensive ideology in general, the adherents of the neutral-inclusive Norm will be able to live in peaceful coexistence with other citizens and without antisymbols. No denominational symbol, not even a neutralistic one, will then be forced upon them. In all those countries or regions of the world where the adherents of the Ananorm are confronted with antisymbols, they shall take those symbols at least as seriously as the people who flout the right to personhood or the principle of ideological inclusivity. But instead of propagating those symbols, they shall oppose them with arguments and all other suitable means; or, so long as ideological or denominational equality is not respected by the exponents of the counterideology in question, they shall replace or juxtapose those antisymbols with the intrinsic symbols of neutralism-inclusivism, if necessary even in an interideological context. The right to personhood and the principle of denominational inclusivity require the total, fundamental and symbolic, separation of state and comprehensive ideology, whether theocentristic or normistic, religious or nonreligious, theodemonistic or nontheodemonistic, and whether recognizing a principal being or not recognizing such a being. Since a person's world- outlook is a private affair (if, and to the extent that not everyone's world- outlook is the same), 'e must not in any way, alone or with others, use public institutions to impose the particular, doctrinal values and/or symbols of 'er ideology on other citizens who do not believe in those values or symbols. Even for those living in a time in which countless forms of interideological exclusivism afflict the whole world, once the moment must come that in all countries of this same world, or in the only country as the case may be, all forms of denominational exclusivity and exclusion will be eradicated both in the fundamental and in the symbolic field. Humankind should be able to celebrate the dawning of this age of worldwide denominational freedom and equality in the year 1. Those who naively claim that the year 1 passed already hundreds or thousands of years ago have merely been deceived, or have merely deceived themselves, into believing that the system of chronological notation of their own part of the world, or of the denominational paradigm of their own time, would have universal validity. But a year numbered according to a supernaturalist or exclusivist system of chronological notation can never mark the beginning of an era of respect for people, regardless of their denominational convictions; at the most it will mark the end of the era of the old paradigm's symbol imposition, and hopefully of all supernaturalism and exclusivism with it. Moreover, the year EI 1 (that is, of the era of denominational or ideological inclusivity) does not and must not in any way indicate the official adoption by the state of one or more symbols typical of the DNI either, as this itself would be ideologically exclusivistic. The age-old, irrelevantist systems of chronological notation are the last antisymbols to be officially abolished when all other vestiges of state religionism or totalitarianism have already been wiped out. The abolition of these last official antisymbols should therefore take place in the year BI 1, that is, before (the era of denominational or ideological) inclusivity. Only the future can tell those people who lived in the times of state religionism and other brands of ideological totalitarianism what year they really lived in or 'will have lived in': was it something like BI 100? BI 200? BI 400? The early readers of this Model, or all the people who were born before the year 1, should not only hope that the exclusivist era will not last much longer, they should personally contribute to (the hastening of) its actual arrest. The least they can do, then, is not to voluntarily perpetuate its unacceptable symbolism. 2 THE CHOICE OF WORDS AND NAMES 2.1 THE USE AND NONUSE OF LINGUISTIC SYMBOLS 2.1.1 LITERAL, METONYMICAL AND VERBAL SYMBOLISM [not available] 2.1.2 THE NEUTRAL-INCLUSIVIST CHOICE OF LINGUISTIC SYMBOLS Everyone's use and nonuse of words, as ordinary linguistic symbols, is, in the first place, dependent on the language of communication. However, within the framework of such a language, the vocabulary of the neutral-inclusivist will or may differ from other vocabularies in the following respects: in the use of catenical terms in the use of 'paraneutral' verbal symbols in the nonuse of lingually exclusivistic terms and of terminological distinctions which are irrelevant in the context concerned in the explicitly inclusivistic use of terms which are traditionally lingually exclusivistic in the rejection of infralinguistic exclusivism in the nonuse of (typically) theodemonist or supernaturalist terms in the explicitly inclusivistic and veridicalistic use of terms which are traditionally theodemonistic or supernaturalistic. Much of what applies to the neutral-inclusivist choice of words also applies to the choice of names. But characteristic of the inclusivist choice of names is of course the rejection of all forms of onomastic exclusivism, whether as an operational manifestation of individual exclusivism or of any other integral exclusivism. The employment of catenical terms as literal, denotative symbols is inherent in the catenical fundament of neutral thought. Neutralism is unthinkable without some kind of catenical vocabulary. The potential use of catenical terms in names is practically unlimited because of the indefinite number of catenas and because of the many different types of predicate one can refer to in a name. Examples are: ... of the (Three) Catenated Predicates, ... of (Neutral) Catenality, ... of (Catenated) Neutrality and ... of (Happiness and) Nanhappiness. Dependent on the language of communication, on the choice of words and on personal taste, these and similar expressions may sound more or less poetic and be suitable as proper names. The Ananorm's verbal symbolism comprises the n-a series of neutralist morphemes. But while symbols like nan and ana may be almost ideal, 'paraneutral', verbal symbols, they are not the only ones. Also sound or character combinations which are merely symmetrical, for instance, can function as verbal symbols in our denominational doctrine. The n-a series is not onomatopoeic in that the spoken terms would be vocal imitations of sounds associated with them (like cuckoo or hiss). But it is partially onomatopoeic in a sense in that the sound of each word (and its written image) does suggest its neutral or neutrality-related meaning. (How and why, we shall discuss in the last division of this chapter.) Presentatively speaking, a word like ananorm is a mere synonym of norm of neutrality and as such only a literal, purely denotative symbol. But representatively speaking, the prefix ana- relates the norm of neutrality to all neutral thought, feeling and conduct. It is in this representative sphere that ana- becomes a verbal symbol and acquires a neutralist quality which reaches far beyond the literal meaning it has in connection with the base-word. This is not only the case for a neologism like ananorm but also for some old words which are acceptable as part of the neutralist vocabulary because they have a prefix such as ana- and because of (one of) their appropriate conventional meaning(s). Thus the word anabasis can very well be used to denote the advance of the neutral-inclusive movement, for advance has always been one of its lexical meanings. Such a word can be made part of the doctrine's vocabulary without having been specifically neutralistic before. It goes without saying that the paraneutral prefixes do not have any fundamental significance in that every word which happened to start with such a prefix would have to be adopted by us with its traditional meaning. The verbal symbols of the n-a series may be employed to form names in a presentative way; they may also emerge in such names when objects are named after a neutral-inclusivist thing or notion. Also the potential use of the names of these things or notions is great. Examples are: ... of the Ananorm, ... of Nanhonore (such as The Way of Nanhonore) and The Anabatic Stream. For other names (or initials) it may be their symmetry which symbolizes neutrality or neutral-inclusivity. The nonuse of lingually exclusivistic terms and of terminological distinctions which are irrelevant in the context concerned needs hardly any further explanation. Such nonuse may even go unnoticed when there is a suitable alternative within the framework of the official or standard language. This will probably be the case when we do not use derogatory words to refer to members of certain groups, or when we use sincere rather than honest. But there may also be a suitable alternative within the framework of the total language which is traditionally not always usual. This could be said of the use of it instead of she to refer to a country, ship or car. The nonuse of irrelevantist terms does become more noticeable in such a case. When a language does not offer any suitable alternative, one is forced to choose new words, new sets of words or new meanings for old words. It is then that the neutral-inclusivist speaker will most markedly deviate from the traditional speaker. An example is our gender-transcending use of 'e and 'er, since the time-honored variant of the present language does not have any third person pronoun (only a male pronoun and a female pronoun). Lingual inclusivity can be rendered explicit not just by using the neuter gender where a nonneuter gender has been normal before but also by purposefully breaking thru the exclusivist connotation of words which by themselves do not denote exclusivists or their notions, attitudes or actions. We can do this by using terms which are traditionally exclusivistic in an explicitly inclusivistic way. This can be illustrated for the facet of physical laterality-neutral inclusivity (with writing-related handedness- neutral inclusivity as discussed in F.2.3.4). In a laterality-neutral terminology the words sinister and gauche will have no unfavorable connotation as in abnegational sinistral exclusivism; and the word dexter will have no favorable connotation as in aggrandizemental dextral exclusivism. Sinister and dexter are then purely synonymous to left and right, and neither pair of words indicates anything else than the side which is used or on which something is located. So long as the use of left and right is free and unbiased too, calling the left side of a building, for instance, "the sinister side" and the right side "the dexter side" will symbolically underline the laterality-neutral facet of our inclusivist doctrine. The rejection of infralinguistic exclusivism --the fifth point on our list-- is more in the nature of a fundamental than of a symbolic issue. Moreover, infralinguistic inclusivity does not lead to a uniform, written or spoken, vocabulary. On the contrary, it makes diversity in the neutral-inclusivist vocabulary possible. One of the two or more variants may even be equal to a (more) traditional variant which is not typically neutral-inclusivistic. Infralinguistic inclusivity is not something that characterizes one speaker or writer in one work. That is the difference between infralinguistic inclusivity and inconsistence. Infralinguistic inclusivity is something that characterizes a group of language users, or one language user under different circumstances. Whether the neutral-inclusivist vocabulary will actually show the diversity infralinguistic inclusivity allows for, cannot be foreseen. Whatever may occur, such diversity is not something to strive for in itself. Naturally, our disbelief in the ultimate authority of exclusivist gods and demons and our disbelief in supernatural constructs implies the nonuse of theodemonist and supernaturalist terms, except when referring to theodemonist or supernaturalist beliefs or believers themselves. This also means that the practising adherent of the DNI shall not curse by employing theodemonist or supernaturalist names or words for emphasis. Any person doing so in spite of these considerations will, while flying in the face of the Norm, only show a damnable weakness of character. It is not always easy to determine whether a word or name is inherently theodemonistic or supernaturalistic, or whether it merely happens to be used by theodemonists or supernaturalists. Some notions, like god and sacred, clearly belong to the former category, whereas other notions, like being and supreme, clearly belong to the latter. Between these two epistemic categories there is a third class of notions for which the choice to make is completely or largely stipulative. An example is holy or holiness. Is holy an inherently supernaturalistic notion? From the etymological standpoint it can be argued that it is a 'holist' notion and therefore suitable for inclusivistic usage. Yet, it might be argued instead that holiness is so tainted by its historical connection with supernaturalist superstition and idolatry, that it is better to 'wholly' dissociate oneself from this term as much as possible. Perhaps, some will argue the same with regard to the notion of 'dharma'. This concept is historically not just connected with a custom or law regarded as a duty but with a particular set of customs and laws with a highly supernaturalistic and extremely exclusivistic content. But such a content is also here not inherent in the etymology of dharma which derives from dharayati meaning (h)e holds and akin to firm. Nor is that content inherent in dharma when it is defined as basic principles of cosmic or individual existence or nature in a sense which is more normative than descriptive. (Also the content of what was customarily called "morality" has been very exclusivistic, especially sexualistic. Yet, that is no reason either not to use the word moral at all anymore, altho it is a reason to use it much more sparingly than before.) Therefore it is very well possible to call the set of basic principles of the DNI "the dharma" too. The Dharma is then the literary reference to the entire Norm itself. Since the use of terms like holy and dharma or Dharma may be controversial, it should be made clear, if they are used, that they have an explicitly inclusivistic and veridicalistic content in the case of the DNI. We use an upper case instead of a lower case letter to show that a linguistic symbol is a name and not a literal word symbol. The Norm, for instance, is no norm, because the Norm itself is not a single interpreted principle. Conversely, when a linguistic symbol literally presents a certain thing or notion, there is no need to always capitalize it, at least not if there is only one such thing or notion. That is why we spell "supreme being", for the supreme being is indeed the sole being that is supreme, that is, of a supreme normative value. On the neutral-inclusivist model a Supreme Being is no supreme being. 2.2 SPEAKING TO OR ABOUT SIBS AND OTHER PEOPLE 2.2.1 SIBS AND SIBLINGS Sexual irrelevantists have no 'sibs' but only 'sisters' and/or 'brothers'. Even when the gender of the body of a person who has the same parent(s) has no bearing on the subject of the conversation whatsoever, they will still speak of "their sisters" and of "their brothers". Fortunately, the present language --unlike the traditional variants of many other languages-- does have a word for somebody or someone who has the same parent(s), namely the word sib. Etymologically this term is akin to suus meaning nothing else than one's own. (It is only a coincidence that sib starts with the si of sister and ends with the b of brother.) An awkward way of defining sib is brother or sister (considered) irrespective of sex. In such a definition the language user is supposed to take a sib's gender into account without taking it into account. But purely truth-conditionally it must be admitted that a sib is a brother or sister, and that sibs are a brother or brothers and or or a sister or sisters. Elsewhere sib and sibling may be treated as synonyms, but we shall reserve the latter term for persons who are members of the same group, particularly for persons who have the same ideals. The equivalents in sexualist subcultures are brother for male sibling and sister for female sibling. Exclusivist trade unions, professional organizations and religious orders are favorite places of such brothers and sisters: "We must fight for our rights, brothers!" and "Beloved brethren, we are gathered together to pray for our sisters who have taken a vow of silence". Both outlaws and legal specialists have formed brotherhoods in the past, and the old law of the land may thus force even antisexualist persons and groups to use the services of such a brotherhood. In 'titles', or when used as a form of address, brother and sister are capitalized as in Lord Exequall used to be Brother Wye or in If she gets her way, Sister Exex will revolutionize the whole ward. Sibs have a biologic relationship with each other, but no such relationship is required for siblings, altho their emotional ties may be as strong as, or stronger than, those of sibs who grew up together. Neither biologic- materialist nor maritally exclusivistic considerations play a role in our common adherence to the Ananorm or in the establishment of a neutral- inclusive society. Gender is, likewise, not relevant either in this respect. We may be male or female when our interest is an erotic one, or when we want to beget or bear a child, in general we are people with neutral- inclusivistic convictions. Hence, unless the context is erotic or related to procreation, we and our sibling adherents shall not call each other "brother" or "sister". For our ideal is a 'sibling culture' that truly and relevantly transcends all sister- and all brotherhood. 2.2.2 FORMS OF ADDRESS Just as sexualists use Brother and Sister, and also Father and Mother, as 'titles', so inclusivists can use Sibling as a 'title', that is, as a 'title' for everyone without any exclusivist content. Sibling may, then, also be a form of address: Sibling Lee, Sibling Nan, Sibling Ronnie, and so on. Religiogenic, bourgeois or proletarian titles like Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms and Tovarish (if used for young men but not for young women) are obviously unsuitable for inclusivist reproduction. (Not to mention religious or theodemonical excrescences such as The Right Reverend Father in God, Lord Bishop by Divine Providence.) They make use of sexual, marital and etatic distinctions which do not have the universal and permanent relevance which is implicitly suggested (altho in the subcultures concerned the influence of the belief in the relevance of these distinctions may be very pervasive indeed). An appropriate alternative for bourgeois and other exclusivist forms of address is Person, for that is what we are addressing ourselves to: to persons, not to bodies or small children. Instead of Mr Burgher and Mrs, Miss or Ms Labour, Person Burgher and Person Labour will do as well as the Sibling variant. Comrade and an equivalent like Tovarish (or Tovarich) may also be acceptable, provided that no distinction is drawn between males and females, and provided that this does not lead to confusion between the DNI and incompatible ideologies. Should 'titles' like Sibling, Person and Comrade seem too short or not polite enough, one can always add (my) dear or respected. (In that case respect denotes concern and sympathy.) The Resp(ected) P(erson)s Burgher and Labour or Labour and Burgher should thus replace Mr and Mrs Burgher. This nonsexualist form of address shows respect for Sibling Labour in particular, when compared with the archaic and bourgeois Mrs Burgher or --even worse-- Mrs John Burgher. When Labour and Burgher are not only two different persons but also partners, and are addressed as a couple, "(the respected) partners (Person) Labour and (Person) Burgher" (or "Burgher and (Person) Labour") may be used, or "(the respected) Person Labour and partner" (if Burgher's surname is not known) or "(the respected) Person Burgher and partner" (if Labour's surname is not known). When Dear Siblings is used to address a group of people, it does not only transcend the irrelevantism of a monosexual expression like Beloved Brethren but also of a bisexual expression like Ladies and Gentlemen (except, maybe, when the speaker is allocating toilets to female and male, adult humans respectively). And -- again-- Dear Siblings is not obligatory. For those who have an open mind there are enough imaginative alternatives to the antiquated sexually, maritally and otherwise exclusivistic titles or forms of address. In a relevantist environment it need not be explained that, and why, one does not consider a person's sex, marital status or age when speaking to or about 'im. In a mixed environment, however, it may clarify one's position, when emphasizing that one does not believe a person's sex, marital status or age to be to the point in the context concerned. This can be done by adding some sort of 'irrelevancy phrase' such as without irrelevance, free from (irrelevant) distinction(s), free from irrelevance or without (irrelevant) distinction(s). Especially in situations where sexual, marital and/or etatic exclusivism are still going strong, the connection with these exisms can be shown by adding of sex, marital status, age (or otherwise). For example, one may start a lecture with Dear listeners, please accept my respects free from distinctions of sex and age; or a letter with Dear Persons, please accept our greetings free from irrelevant distinctions. Official titles may be regarded as relevant, if someone holds a certain office, and when the communication refers to official business. Examples are Dear Professor, My Dear Ambassador and The President. In addressing, referring to or saluting a person the first time, someone may want to employ a longer or more formal expression, while using a shorter or more informal one later on. Thus 'e could write the first time "My Dear Person Councilor Onoma, please accept my respects free from irrelevant distinctions" (Onoma being another, fictitious surname). When 'e has known the addressee for some time already, 'e could simply write "Dear Person Onoma" or "Dear Onoma", if not using 'er forename or call name instead. 2.3 THE N-A SERIES OF NEUTRALIST MORPHEMES 2.3.1 THE TWO HALVES OF LINGUISTIC SYMBOLISM REUNITED One of the basic assumptions of latter-day linguists is that literal, linguistic symbols are essentially arbitrary, that is, that there is no connection whatsoever between the sound of a word (the signal) and the thing it denotes or connotes (the message). Only a small number of onomatopoeic words are recognized by them as exceptions. On their 'conventionalist' view the names of things are due purely to convention and have no deeper appropriateness. Linguistic conventionalists once had to fight the so-called 'naturalist' doctrine that there would be a correct name for everything by nature. According to this doctrine words denoting movement, for instance, would actually and necessarily contain an r or l (two sounds which are acoustically similar and may be allophones of the same phoneme, albeit not in the present language). Nowadays it is said that naturalism was 'inluenced by a primitive belief in the magic properties of names'; or that in 'primitive societies' a thing was believed to be its name. Conventionalists may conveniently have assumed that they settled the issue forever, and yet the rejection of supernaturalist 'naturalism' by no means forces us to adopt an entirely arbitrary conventionalism with respect to new words or the introduction of new morphemes, and with respect to a selective use of old ones. There may be no necessary link between the sound of a word and the thing it refers to, such does not mean that a certain linguistic symbol could not be connected with a certain thing in a fashion which is not arbitrary. It is only then that the sound of a word does not refer to a particular thing, but symbolizes it in the most appropriate way. Thus, given that certain phonemes are more stable than other ones, it is a straightforward case of analogy that --if possible, and if wanted-- words denoting or connoting stability or things which are stable, or which belong to the same associative field, should contain one or more stable phonemes (like n or m) rather than unstable ones (like s or h). Making use of such analogies is quite something else than arguing that existing words do actually contain these phonemes in a particular language as linguistic naturalists were once so audacious to profess. We shall call this new position "the symbolist position". Altho not incompatible with conventionalism, it treats the language user not merely as a consumer of conventional products but also as a creator of new products and as a selective user of old ones. Names may not have magic properties, they do have properties, that is, whole- properties and part-properties. In the spoken language a whole-property is, for example, the place of the primary stress. The part-properties are, then, those of the individual sounds making up the name. In the present language at least one of these sounds is always a vowel, and it may also be possible to link one or more of the properties of such a vowel to certain things in the reality the total word is about. Usually the thing will not have the same property, yet it may have an attribute with the same conceptual position, or a similar attribute in a different respect. The word symbol itself derives from symballein meaning (to) throw together. This throwing together refers to an ancient custom of breaking a coin or ring in two when friends would part for a long time or forever. Would one of them, or one of their other friends or relatives, return after many years, the two parts of the coin or ring could be compared with each other. This would give the possessor a token of identity and a right to the other person's hospitality. Now, the two halves which our own linguistic symbolism reunites are, on the one hand, the view that the names of things are due to convention, and on the other, the view that the names of things need not be completely arbitrary combinations of sounds or characters. It is in their separated conditions, when broken away from each other, that these views existed, or still exist, as conventionalism and naturalism respectively. 2.3.2 THE CHOICE OF VOWEL(S) AND CONSONANT(S) To express neutral and inclusive thought we have to make use of an existing script and language in our communication with others. The present script is (at least for the early readers of this Model) the most applied script in the world, and the present tongue is (similarly) the most widely used one of those which apply the present script. When considering individual linguistic systems (or groups of related systems), the most widely used system does not belong to the same family as the present one, but other widely used systems (with the present one among them) all belong to the same linguistic family. Many words in these linguistic systems have been and still are derived from three languages in particular, that is, three ancient languages which are now dead. Altho these three languages represent the largest family of languages in the world, they have no linguistic universality, and we have therefore no reason to derive our vocabulary exclusively from them. However important the cultures in question may have been in the evolution of human civilization, many other cultures have existed, exist now, and will emerge on the planet Earth, which must not be regarded as less important. Yet, while our new morphemes should be based on the most general linguistic principles, this does not mean that we would not remain confined by most of the traditional rules of the particular language we communicate in. In phonetics cardinal vowels are often plotted on a diagram with the sound ï (pronounced as in technique), or a similar but shorter one, at the extreme left. (Phonetics is not interested in spelling and does not use the phonetic symbols of this Model. As already noted in F.3.3.1 we ourselves make use of an overlay system in which each diacritic indicates for one written letter a particular way of pronouncing that letter. The phoneme ï is therefore identical to the e in be.) The sound ü (as in rule), or a similar but shorter sound, is plotted at the extreme right of the diagram; and ä (as in art), or a similar but shorter sound, near the center of the left/right scale. Between ï and ä one finds e (as in bet) and a (the ash as in bat) or a closely related vowel; between ä and ü one finds o (as in dog), or a similar shorter sound, and u (as in put) or a closely related vowel. This yields roughly the following series of vowels with ä closer to the middle than any of the other vowels: ï , e , a , ä , o , u , ü . The vowels on the left of the nearly central vowel ä are so-called 'front vowels'; those on the right 'back vowels'. Front vowels are pronounced with the front, central vowels with the middle part and back vowels with the back of the tongue raised. This subdivision is based on the horizontal movement of the tongue. (The ä is then 'between center and back, slightly more center'.) As regards the vertical movement of the tongue phoneticians distinguish open, half-open, half-close and close vowels. On the basis of this subdivision the ä is a fully open vowel with the tongue almost flat in the mouth. Moreover, the lips are said to be 'neutral' when pronouncing the ä. We could call the ä "a neutral vowel between front vowels on the one hand, and back vowels on the other". But what traditionally has been called "the neutral vowel" is the schwa (as in abut) because this is a central vowel produced with the tongue in the position it has when at rest and with the lips 'neutral' or spread. Rest is also a neutral notion, and in this respect the choice of the schwa as the vowel of a neutralist morpheme is about as legitimate as the choice of the ä. The unstressed schwa (pronounced as the first vowel in abut) and the similarly articulated stressed vowel (the second in abut) can, just like the ä, be plotted in the middle of a cardinal vowel diagram with the unstressed schwa half-open to half-close and its stressed equivalent open to half-open. (This latter vowel may be represented by a schwa symbol too.) Altho they are not cardinal themselves, they are also relatively pure and unchanging. Yet, unlike the ä, many languages do not have the schwa as a phoneme, and therefore the schwa (or its stressed equivalent) is not to be considered a universal vowel. That the ä is not only a universal vowel but also of a neutral nature clearly shows in the (main dialect of the) most widely spoken language (which does not belong to the same family as the present language). The speech sounds of this tongue can be divided into 'shengs' (the first letter if a consonant) and 'yuns' (the rest of the speech sound made up of one or more vowels, sometimes followed by n, ng or a sound written as r). Not all shengs and yuns can be combined. Especially the shengs y (pronounced as in yes) and w exclude each other in this respect. The remarkable thing is that a yun goes together with both these approximants if its vowel is the neutral ä. Does the yun contain a back or front vowel, then it cannot always be combined with the palatal y or the bilabial velar w. Thus the morphemes ye and yi exist but not yo. On the other hand, wo and wu exist but not we and wi. However, both ya and wa exist as morphemes. Now, when considering (human) languages in general again, it does not matter whether the ä and the schwa are described as neutral or as central vowels. Neutrality is a concept in the same associative field as centrality, because it is the central predicate of the catena which is neutral --'central', that is, between negative predicates on the one hand (represented, let us say, by ï, e and a) and positive ones on the other (o, u and ü). So far as vowels are concerned we conclude therefore that on the symbolist view words denoting and/or connoting centrality or neutrality, central or neutral things, or things in the same associative field, should have ä as a vowel, or as the most important or central vowel. In tongues like the present one, in which both the ä and the schwa exist as phonemes, the schwa may replace the ä when there is a special reason for doing so. But what about the consonants? The situation here is less clear, for while the neutral ä is a central vowel between front and back vowels, there is no consonant in a similar position as a limit element between two opposite sets of consonants. This is not to say that there does not exist a central consonant in any respect. If one takes the difference between compactness and diffuseness on the grounds of which the centrality of the ä can phonetically be demonstrated, one will find that the k may be considered a central letter too among consonants and on the same grounds. But the 'opposite' sets of letters are not clearly distinguished here. And there is another reason why the plosive obstruent k does not fulfil our requirements: it cannot appear at all positions in the words of certain languages. The consonant we are looking for has, just like the vowel, to be 'universal' in that it exists in all languages (or in as many languages as possible) and in that it can appear at any place in the morphemes of those languages. In the most widely used language not belonging to the same linguistic family as the present one, the velar plosive k cannot close off a word; the only consonants which can, are the n, ng and a sound spelled as r (among others). The velar nasal ng is not a 'neutral' consonant in that it can solely appear at the end of a yun --it cannot appear at the beginning of a syllable in the present language either--; and the r in the language concerned is not the same consonant as the r in this language. Therefore only the alveolar nasal n remains as a 'universal' consonant, at least so far as the two linguistic families in question are concerned. For the family of the present language there is the added advantage that the n is already to be found in neutral and its paronyms (neutrality, neutralize, neutron, neuter) and in non- which can be associated with the negation of positivity, negativity and polarity in general. The n is a stable sound which can adequately represent stability, something it has in common with the m. Neutrality is a concept in the same field as stability, because stability is rest, steady motion or equilibrium, that is, a neutral state between negative and positive movement or change. Since the n also occurs in (nearly?) all human languages, it can be associated both with stability and neutrality, and with anthropic inclusivity or inclusivity in general (or the smallest possible degree of exclusivity). This is what it has in common with the neutral a, except that the first association is there with centrality rather than with stability. The m and n are both stable, nasal consonants and thus the alveolar n could be replaced by the bilabial m. Since the m is not such a good representative of inclusivity as the n, the reason for doing so should be a compelling one. 2.3.3 SIX MORPHEMES, OF WHICH ONE INEFFABLE The n (or m) is a suitable letter for symbolizing stability and consequently neutrality; the ä (or schwa) for symbolizing centrality and consequently also neutrality. In addition, both the n and the ä are suitable letters for symbolizing universality and consequently inclusivity. Together morphemes constituted of n and the neutral a as in schwa can therefore very well represent the notion and ideal of neutral-inclusivity. Starting with n the potential morphemes are na, nan, nana and so on; starting with a they are an, ana, anan and so on. More complex morphemes like naan (with twice a) and anna (with twice n) will not be considered here, because the spoken language does not allow such a doubling of sounds, or because in the written language such a doubling of letters has a different meaning. (This is not to say that Naan and Anna could not be nice, neutral-inclusivist proper names.) The simple morphemes listed above can be pronounced fluently in all languages -- one would expect. But the shortest ones of them, namely na and an, have already acquired a meaning in the present and/or other languages, either as an independent word or as an affix. Since they are not even symmetrical, we shall begin our collection of morphemes with nan and ana. Figure S.2.3.3.1 shows the elements of the n-a series with their regular and irregular, potential pronunciations. The regular pronunciations given are those with ä and varying stress positions. The irregular ones are those with a schwa, an a [ash] or an â [pronounced as the stressed indefinite article], which may be acceptable from a different point of view. Nan, nana, ana and anan are very suitable as prefixes or as roots of words in the language we are communicating in at the moment. Nan is the only one that, on its own, does not have asymmetrical primary stress. It is symmetrical both from the angle of stress and from the angle of its letter composition. This is what makes nan in itself representative of neutrality. Nan has therefore been chosen as a prefix with which the name of a neutrality can be derived from that of a positivity or a bipolarity. It has thus the function of limiting the original subset of attributes. (Also a positivity usually consists of more than one attribute.) Its meaning is being the neutral, external limit element of. This meaning does not correspond with the meaning of the 'un- prefixes' (un-, a-, dis-, il-, im-, in- and ir-), but it is in principle compatible with the meaning of non- and not, albeit much more specific. For example, nanhappy is not merely not happy but also not unhappy and not uncatenal; it pertains to everything that has the neutral attribute of the happiness catena. Similarly, nanhonorable does not merely mean not honorable but neither honorable nor dishonorable, while solely pertaining to things which could be honorable or dishonorable. Because our principles are centered in neutrality, a symbol for neutral is very helpful where it designates elements of the neutralist doctrine, rather than catenated predicates. The norm of neutrality, for instance, can, strictly speaking, not be called "a neutral norm" since norms are not catenated primary predicates. (But for the sake of convenience we do also use neutral in the sense of neutrally catenal.) Therefore the sound combination ana, which is symmetrical apart from stress, has been selected to indicate the presence of neutrality without altering the meaning of the base-word. While nan- refers to what is neutrally catenal, whether perfective or not, ana- refers to what is perfection-related but not perfective in itself. Nana and anan are primarily used as roots of the adjectives and nouns with - ic and -icity as suffixes. Hence: nanaic, nanaicity and ananic, ananicity. (The morphemes -ic and -icity are, of course, only meant as suffixes for the present language.) In addition nana- functions as a prefix in nanapolar and nanapolarity. Whereas nana is a morpheme of corrective neutralism, anan is a morpheme of perfective neutralism. Nana stands for what is aimed at, or furthers, what is ananormatively superior; and anan for having a predicate which is ananormatively superior. The condition of having a perfective, neutral predicate is ananicity and the condition of having a corrective, nanapolar predicate is nanaicity. The opposite of nanaicity is 'unnanaicity'; its neutral limit element is 'nannanaicity'. Nanaicity is the general term for having a predicate which is nanapolar, unnanaicity for having one which is 'unnanapolar', and nannanaicity for having one which is 'nan-nanapolar'. The fourth term in the series starting with na is nanan. This morpheme will be regarded as a noun in itself and should designate a thing which is nanaic. Due to the location of the primary stress (on the first syllable), nanan is asymmetrical in pronunciation, but this is compatible with the unneutral character of nanaicity. For the same reason there is little against pronouncing the a as a or a schwa in a word like nanan, or as â in word like nanaic. Whereas ananaic would not be suitable as a perfective- neutralist symbol, nanaic is indeed suitable as a corrective-neutralist one. Finally, there is one term we have not discussed yet: it is the fourth term in the series starting with an. Like nanan also this term can be treated as a noun. A remarkable feature of it is that it is symmetrical both in spelling and in pronunciation if the stress is put on the central syllable (and if letters are viewed as wholes). This unique noun is a perfect, neutral sound and character combination and as such the symbolic verbal epitome of neutral thought. However, as the name of the supreme being itself it is ineffable. 2.3.3.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE NAME OF THE SUPREME BEING The name of the supreme is fundamentally ineffable, for the supposition that the supreme being exists only re-presents the end of ananicity. To serve the end of ananicity we need not adopt the symbolism of the doctrine. Where everyone is together, using this symbol is itself not even inclusive anymore. It is by not uttering the name of the supreme being that we realize this. The name of the supreme is symbolically ineffable, for the supposition that the supreme being exists epitomizes ananicity in the end. To serve ananicity in the end we need not utter the name of the supreme being. Where everything is perfected, serving this purpose is itself not even all-neutral anymore. It is by not uttering the name of the supreme being that we realize this. The name of the supreme may be easy to pronounce, it is ineffable in the Norm. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 THE SUPREME AND THE NANAIC 3.1 THE ALL-ANANIC 3.1.1 THE CONCEPT OF (THE) SUPREME BEING According to the principle of catenated neutrality, the neutral predicate of a catena extensionality has, in the first instance, the highest normative value. Let us assume that ci is the catena value for catena I, and that ni is the normative value. The principle of neutrality does not tell how ni relates to ci, but one possibility is that ni = 1 / ( |ci| + 1). In that case ci = 0 and ni = 1 for neutrality (the highest normative value), and ci /= 0 and ni < 1 for unneutrality (the same for equally unneutral, negative and positive catena values). Now, let us also assume that vj is the overall normative value of a primary thing J, or of a combined state of being J, based on the normative value of the catenated predicates of the thing or state of being in question. We do not know how vj relates to the values ni,j (that is ni for J), but here too the function has to fulfil a number of requirements. One function which does fulfil these requirements is vj = P ni,j (that is, vj = n1,j * n2,j * n3,j ... ). According to this function the thing or things with the highest or supreme value are those with value 1 (the same normative value as for one single form of ananicity). A state of being with the normative value 1 is then the highest, or supreme, state of being. In the Book of Fundamentals (F.3.1.6) it was pointed out that there is no empirically given 'neutral' longitude, latitude or altitude in a three- dimensional spatial universe, altho the norm of neutrality does apply to the corresponding catenas. Even the hypothesis of mean-neutrality does not give us an empirical clue in this respect. Yet, there is one thing we can tell from the applicability of the norm of neutrality to the basic spatial catenas, and that is that, so far as spatiotemporal things are concerned, there can only be one thing that is neutral in this respect; at least if we agree that there can only be one object or spatiotemporal thing at a place at a time. (The adjective spatiotemporal is, strictly speaking, superfluous because non-spatiotemporal things cannot be at any place.) There may not be a fixed 'tri-neutral' point in the universe, any supreme spatiotemporal being, that is, any being that is (also) supreme in the spatiotemporal respect, must be located at the tri-neutral point, whether this point is fixed or flexible. This means that there can only be one such supreme spatiotemporal being, because its value vj < 1, if it is not neutral with respect to one of the three spatial catenas. It does not mean that there must be such a thing. The symbolic importance of this deduction is that one can rightfully speak of "the supreme being", for if a supreme being is an object, there is only one of it, that is, one supreme object. If it is not an object (whether or not in addition to a supreme being which is), there is no need to use the plural. In that case it is more appropriate to speak of "a supreme state of being" or of "supreme being". The unique primary thing located at the theoretically tri-neutral point in the three-dimensional spatial universe is, or would be, the supreme being if it also is, or was, neutral in all other ananormative respects in which it is catenal. Only then is its total, combined normative value 1. Should it be noncatenal in a number of respects, its combined value is still 1. All we can say is that the supreme being is and/or should not be unneutrally catenal in any ananormative respect, and not whether it is neutral instead of noncatenal. However, since the supreme being is and/or should be neutral or ananic for all catenical aspects where it is catenal, it may be called "the all-neutral or all-ananic being". (This is not a proper name but a definite description.) Of the two terms all-neutral and all-ananic the latter one is much more accurate for two reasons: firstly, the supreme is, strictly speaking, not 'neutral' but neutrally catenal; and secondly, the supreme is not neutrally catenal with respect to all catenas but (if catenal at all) only with respect to catenas to which the principle of catenated neutrality actually applies. The 'all-neutral' supreme being is not neutral with respect to modulus, and other factitiously derived, catenas, for instance. Since the supreme is neutral with respect to basic catenas (granted that it is catenal with respect to those catenas), bicatenal bivariant difference- catenality is not applicable to it in a factual sense, even tho bicatenal bivariant equality is ananormatively superior. It can be argued that the supreme should be equal to every primary thing, because every primary thing that is catenal in the same respect should be equal to the supreme. But it cannot be argued that the supreme actually is equal to every other primary thing, whether that thing is neutral or not, and therefore perhaps nonsupreme, in the basic respect. Equality may be superior to inequality, it is better that the supreme is not equal to an inferior being than that it is equal to it. By speaking of "the supreme" we are not simply referring to any being, as the concept of bicatenal bivariant difference-catenality implies. The supreme has then already been defined in terms of the basic catena. Altho this definition does not seem to be of any real significance in the spatiotemporal field (for there is no neutral-directed force aimed at some absolute tri-neutral point, so far as we know) it must be taken into account if our symbolism is to be (as) consistent (as possible). This is not to say that gravitation, as the relative nanaic force in the spatiotemporal field, would not be expressive of what furthers ananormative supremeness. It is only that the relationship between the concept of supremeness (which also applies to systems of primary things) and the concept of a supreme being (which is only one primary thing), or between normative and factual conditions, is more complicated in the case of bicatenal bivariant difference-catenality. We have not proved that the supreme exists; and we have not proved, and will not prove, that the supreme being is literally neutral or ananic in every respect, or in every ananormative respect. What is symbolically important -- and that was the purpose of this section-- is that the concept of a supreme being, or of supreme being, can be deduced in our neutralistic catenical model. 3.1.2 ITS QUALITIES, IF CATENAL When speaking of "the supreme being" it is first necessary to discuss some spatiotemporal aspects of this being. In the last resort, this is the way to distinguish a spatiotemporal primary thing which is supreme from other primary things. Maybe, some will argue that the supreme being, even if it is spatiotemporal, need not be at one place, but could be omnipresent or immanent in the whole of reality. If such a contention is to make sense at all, then those who argue this must confuse the notion of being supreme with the notion of supreme being. Any primary thing in the world that is ananic in a certain respect is supreme in that respect, and thus partakes of supremeness. But this having of a primary predicate which is neutral is quite something else than being a part of something that is neutrally catenal. Moreover, a neutral predicate (whether or not supreme) is not something spatiotemporal, nor does having a neutral predicate make something spatiotemporal. We had therefore better forget about an omnipresent or immanent, supreme being. It is only the norm of neutrality itself, the supremeness of ananicity and non-spatiotemporal supreme being which may be said to be 'omnipresent' in a more or less literary sense. The principle of catenated neutrality does not apply to the predicates of temporal auxiliary series. (See F.3.1.5.) Therefore it is not the case that the supreme being would only exist at one supposedly 'neutral' moment in time. Yet, if we would like to treat time as space, we could say that the present moment is the neutral moment, and that the supreme being only exists 'now'. Altho the supreme being does, then, have no past and no future, it will in practise exist always (if existing at all), for the catenization concerned shifts as time proceeds. If we say that the supreme exists only one moment, it simply cannot move. But even if we say that it exists always, it does not move either, for the all-ananic remains at the tri-neutral point forever. Rest is neutrality, and motion as unneutrality is alien to the supreme being. Nonetheless, motion is relative in practise and the all-ananic may actually change position with respect to a nonuniversal system of reference, that is, with respect to any other system. This is the case for example, if the tri-neutral point is flexible and only based on the location of the supreme being itself. (Compare the neutral present point which would only be based on the flexible moment of supreme existence.) Since the all-neutral being is at rest with regard to the theoretical, universal frame of reference, it could be called "extremely slow". This extremely positive form of catenality is that of the slowness catena, however, and the ananorm does not assign the highest normative value to the neutralities of catenas such as the slowness catena. While the principle of neutrality does not apply to temporal series of auxiliary predicates, it does not apply to normative series of auxiliary predicates either. Insofar as goodness and badness are purely normative or evaluative concepts, the supreme being is all-good (or maximally good) by definition. It is then the norm of neutrality which determines that all-good stands for all-ananic, for (all-)goodness in itself is still devoid of any substance. But good can also be used in the factual sense of beneficent and bad in the sense of maleficent. Goodness is, then, the quality of giving rise to the increase of a happiness-catenary value, and badness the quality of giving rise to the decrease of that value. In that case the all-ananic is neither good nor bad, because the supreme being makes other beings neither happier nor unhappier. Both change and causing change are unneutral and the supreme being does not cause change, neither for the worse nor for the better. Hence, the all-ananic has no destructive or creative powers. It did not even create life, for instance --not even in a symbolic fashion--, because the creation of life, where no life has been terminated or terminates in the same period, would signify an increase in the number of living beings. (This is not to say that the coming into being of life could not be nanaic for reasons not related to the number of living beings.) The all-ananic did never destroy life either, because the destruction of life would signify suffering and a decrease in the number of living beings or the destruction of a natural balance. These are positive and negative predicates the supreme being does not have, and does not cause to have. So far as life is concerned, the supreme being symbolizes the maintenance of the neutrally good life and of the balance of life. Every honor and dishonor is alien to the nature of the all-ananic: it does not honor, nor dishonor; and it is not honored, nor dishonored. If the all- ananic would assign a cultural or social value at all to other things, then only the limit value which is neither low nor high. Similarly, the supreme being itself can only be treated in accordance with the assignment of a value which is neither low nor high. We have clearly to distinguish the fact that it has the highest ananormative value from the fact that it would be treated in an exclusive way as a being with the highest cultural or social status, that is, from the fact that it would be honored. Since the supreme being can solely be treated in a neutral way, it can neither be honored nor dishonored. Also if the supreme being exists, there is no person in the universe who honors or dishonors 'im or it. Every purported veneration or worshiping of the supreme being is really the veneration or worshiping of an inferior being, for example, of an image of the supreme being, or of material attributes, living beings, people or institutions associated with that image. What applies to honor and dishonor, applies to love and hatred. No-one loves or hates the supreme being; it is the image of the supreme being, or another inferior thing, which is loved or hated. Conversely, the supreme being 'imself or itself loves or hates no-one and nothing either. If catenal in this respect, it is ananic with regard to all of us, and with regard to all others. 3.1.3 THE QUESTION OF ITS CATENALITY Since the all-ananic is the principal being of neutrality, it is, for every primary thing that is catenal for a certain aspect, connected with the neutrality of that aspect, even if it is noncatenal for that particular aspect. Not knowing whether the supreme being is catenal or not in a certain respect, each person will tend to project 'er own catenality, or that of a primary thing under consideration, onto the all-ananic, so that the neutral catenality involved is indeed represented by this supreme being. Such a projection can in no way be compared, however, to the false representation in which someone apotheosizes 'er own image by projecting it onto the supreme being, such as the image of 'er own sex or race, of 'er own species, or of that of the living beings of 'er own planet. We could not develop such a deceptive image of the all-ananic, because we know that if it were catenal in a certain respect, it would be neutral in a universal sense. The catenization would then include all things in the universe that are catenal for the aspect in question, and not just our own sex or race, our own species, our own planet or any other exclusive system. When we project our own catenality, that is, the fact that we are catenal in a certain respect, onto the all-ananic, we do not suggest that one of our own predicates is that of the supreme being --we may be positively or negatively catenal ourselves--, but we initiate a comparison with the supreme being or with being supreme. This may, then, turn out to be far different from ourselves. Moreover, the supreme being could indeed be catenal for the aspect in question. A person definitely would not be justified in considering the supreme catenal in a certain respect, when informed of the contrary. The tendency to project specific catenalities onto the all-ananic may be acceptable so long as one realizes that these catenalities are conditional: they only hold true for certain things and not for others. If it is claimed, say, that the all-ananic does not honor and does not dishonor, this is an absolute truth. But if it is believed that the all-ananic is a figure which could honor or dishonor, while having the predicate of nanhonor(ing), this is only true for honor-catenals. For things having no culture in which different or equal social status values are assigned to certain things, the all-ananic cannot honor or dishonor and has the predicate of honor- noncatenality. The quality of neutrality or noncatenality which the all-ananic is assumed to have, when a thing projects its own catenality or noncatenality onto it, is a conditional one. The key-word for having such a proper or improper predicate is the preposition for. The use of for indicates that the all- ananic only has the predicate mentioned symbolically, when a specific class of things (catenals or noncatenals) is the frame of reference. Thus, if life is defined as (the period of) happiness-catenality, referring to the capacity to experience happiness and unhappiness, and death as happiness- noncatenality, then the supreme is nanhappy for living beings and it is no living being for the dead or inanimate. For the living it is (nanhappy) life; for the dead it is death. In this way the supreme being is --again-- not only a symbol of neutrality but of inclusivity as well. 3.1.4 THE TRUTH AND RELEVANCY OF ITS EXISTENCE To a certain extent the existence, or possible existence, of the supreme being can be compared to the existence of a number. The concept of a number does always exist, certainly when speaking about it --even tho some may call it "the incomplete referent of a predicate"-- but whether there 'really' is something that corresponds to such a number, depends on what sets there 'really' are in the universe (so that the question whether there exists a set with exactly that number of elements can be answered). Likewise, the concept of the supreme being cannot be rejected in a coherent normative system, but it is another matter altogether whether there really is an entity that can be individuated and identified, and that is (so far as possible) neutrally catenal in all respects in which it is catenal. Thus there may be a tri-neutral point and an object which occupies it; and yet such does not mean that this object could not be unneutrally catenal in respect of one or more nonspatial catenas. The question which precedes that of the truth of the supreme being's existence is whether its existence or nonexistence is relevant. The answer is, as we have seen in the division on the antithesis between normism and theocentrism in the Book of Fundamentals (F.6.4), that the true existence of the supreme being is not relevant from a fundamentalist, normistic perspective. But also from the symbolist point of view, it is only important to recognize the significance of the supreme being or its image as a symbol which has the same supreme value as ananicity and which is its supreme representation in the world of primary things. On the absolute definition of supreme being we have employed, the supreme being indicates, by the place it is to occupy, the direction of all normative striving, of all attempts to improve the world. (The difference between the absolute and the relative definitions has been explained in I.6.2.4.) The question whether there is (already) an object at a certain point in a certain space of a certain number of dimensions does not affect the direction of the path we go, or have to go, in any way. On a relative definition of supreme being the supreme is a thing which did, does or will come closer to all-neutrality than any other thing which did, does or will exist. The supreme being is then the existent with the highest normative value whether this value is 1 or smaller than 1. (If there are two or more things which are equally superior, then the set of those things may be conceived of as 'the supreme being' altho such a set itself does, strictly speaking, not exist.) Those who opt for the relative definition of supreme being can be sure that the supreme being truly exists, but --as demonstrated already in the Book of Instruments-- the price of this truth is irrelevance. The 'empirical' knowledge that there is a particular existent which comes closest to the ideal of a doctrine does not add anything to one's normative insight, for this insight itself is a prerequisite to determining which existent deserves to be called "supreme". Tho it may not exist, the all-ananic represents normative superiority in every field. In contrast with this, a relatively defined 'supreme existent' could still be normatively inferior in any field, the sole requirement being that it has the highest actual value on the whole. (Note that for divine prophets the absolute and the relative definitions are often conveniently mixed up. On a relative definition such a prophet is an existent, that is, a historical figure; but this may mean that 'e has one or more inferior, perhaps extremely inferior, attributes. On an absolute definition such a prophet would solely have superior attributes, but then no-one may actually ever have lived up to this ideal.) The adherent of the Ananorm need not believe in or deny the true existence of the all-ananic supreme being. Whether or not it exists, the all-ananic represents perfective values like neutral well-being, nondiscrimination, interpersonal equality and the absence of all suffering. Recognizing this representation may make it easier or more meaningful for the individual adherent to conform to the dharma of neutrality and inclusivity. And this is what counts towards the realization of supremeness both in oneself and in others. 3.1.5 ANANIC INSTEAD OF IN(S)ANE Some might wonder whether the neutralistic conception of the supreme being is not relatively empty when compared with traditional conceptions of a 'Supreme Being' who is claimed to be all-good, all-powerful and 'Love Himself', for instance. Naturally, such people are confused. The reason may, first of all, be that they are not capable of distinguishing neutrality from noncatenality. A noncatenal thing may be empty when compared with a thing which is catenal, but a neutrally catenal thing is not emptier than an unneutrally catenal thing. Thus symmetry is not in any way 'emptier' than asymmetry. And if it cannot be guaranteed that the supreme being is catenal in every respect, we may symbolically assume that it is catenal in a particular respect for those things which, or those who, are catenal themselves in that respect. But, perhaps, the people who would prefer something like an all-good and all- powerful Cosmocrator do not so much mean that the all-ananic possesses fewer predicates, but rather that those it possesses do not have the 'fulness' of such predicates like goodness and powerfulness. Presumably, fulness is then nothing else than unneutrality or even extremity. So far as goodness is concerned: this term is used in different senses, and if good is purely normative, the all-ananic being is also an all-good being, for it is then ananicity which is good or a form of goodness. However, if good means beneficent, the all-ananic is as little beneficent as it is powerful (albeit not maleficent or weak either). Why does the supreme being not have 'full' predicates such as beneficence and powerfulness? The answer is simply that the supreme being has only catenated predicates which are supreme, or that the supreme being as a symbol represents supremeness. That is: ananicity, and not nanaicity or other corrective-instrumental values. Hence, what the neutralist refuses, is to jumble up the ultimate and the instrumental, or the perfective and the corrective, and to create one mixed supreme-inferior being. It is the ultimate or perfective which belongs to the supreme, not the instrumental or corrective, however 'full' it may appear to be. Those familiar with the monotheist 'problem of evil' know that we have every reason to believe that one and the same being could never be omnipotent, omniscient and all-good (in the sense of beneficent) at the same time. But even if we forgot, for the sake of argument, our veridicalistic convictions for a moment, would, then, the real existence of an all-powerful, all- knowing, all-good being (or 'Being') make any particular form of monotheist godthink any more plausible? To see whether it would, we should look at the so-called 'great-making characteristics' such a being is supposed to have, namely omnipotence, omniscience and being all-good (or wholly beneficent or wholly just). The first characteristic, omnipotence, may be 'great-making', but it is just not a perfective, let alone an ultimate, value. If it is believed to be one, then a most fiendish, extremist doxastic value. The belief in power or omnipotence as something ultimate in itself is perverse in that it takes means for ends, or corrective-instrumental values for perfective ones. Power may be useful to serve the supreme, it is not supreme in itself. Omniscience (or knowledge in general) cannot be conceived of as a perfective value either --as has already been demonstrated in the Book of Instruments (I.7.3.3). If omniscience and omnipotence are to make any sense at all (even on the extremist account), they must be instrumental values. But instrumental with regard to which perfective value or values defined in purely denotative or factual terms? If the good in all-good is purely evaluative or normative (like, or almost like, just), then it is entirely devoid of any (factual) denotation. A notion such as being all-good or just in no way touches upon the question of which kind of being or acting would be good, just or superior. In short, even the belief in a really existing omnipotent, omniscient and all-good being would have no (respectable) ultimate or perfective value whatsoever. The 'fulness' of such a being is either the foolish result of the insane belief that extremist values like the-most-power would be ultimate, or of the inane belief that values such as goodness or justice per se --not to mention "love"-- would have normative substance in themselves. Even when the supreme is believed to be all-good in the substantive sense of beneficent, the condition that also beneficence in itself cannot be a perfective value remains. And besides that, such an all-beneficent supreme being --Love perhaps?-- would only symbolize utilitarianism, if no ultimate or perfective value other than beneficence or utility (or love?) could be assigned to it at the same time. We conclude that if the ananic supreme being is 'empty' in any sense, then only so because it does not have the 'fulness' of supernatural and theodemonical conceptions. Once more the core of the normative turns out to lie on a higher plane than that of the extremist and/or inane belief in one being that would be omnipotent and omniscient and all-good at the same time and forever. This certainly does not mean, however, that we are not at all interested in beneficent beings that are powerful and knowledgeable as well - -on the contrary. Nonetheless, their beneficence is not what makes them supreme; their beneficence is what makes them nanaic. 3.1.5.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR THE SAKE OF THE SUPREMELY NORMATIVE It is not for love of a man that a man is dear but for the sake of the normative. It is not for love of a woman that a woman is dear but for the sake of the normative. It is not for love of a child that a child is dear but for the sake of the normative. It is not for love of a parent that a parent is dear but for the sake of the normative. It is not for love of wealth that wealth is dear but for the sake of the normative. It is not for love of power that power is dear but for the sake of the normative. It is not for love of happiness that happiness is dear but for the sake of the normative. It is not for love of love that love is dear but for the sake of the normative. Ultimately it is neither for love of itself, nor for love of a god, that anything is dear. The ultimate it is which should always be borne in mind for the sake of the normative. Only thus can mortal beings realize what they wish for, and what is dear as well. Not because it is loved but for the sake of the supremely normative. [This canonical prose poem was inspired by a passage in a philosophic-religious conversation which reportedly took place more than two-and-a-half thousand years earlier.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.2 THE ALL-NANAIC A primary thing which aims at, or furthers, what is ananormatively superior is a nanaic being or 'nanan'. The set of all nanaic beings in the universe of the past, present and future may be called "the all-nanaic" or "all- nanan". As a mere set of primary things the all-nanaic does in a strict ontological sense not exist as a primary thing itself, just as humankind as the set of all individual human beings does not exist either in this sense. Yet, so long as there is one nanaic thing in the universe, the all-nanaic 'exists' in the same sense as humankind 'exists'. The existence of the all- nanaic is therefore as incontestable as the existence of humankind. The all-nanaic is not a 'being' in the sense of a primary thing such as the supreme being or a human being. But, if being is also taken in a wider sense which includes sets of beings, the all-nanaic is not merely a being but the second principal being of the neutralist denominational doctrine. Altho the term all-nanan suggests that this principal being would be a single, primary thing, this suggestion must be interpreted symbolically, for literally the all-nanan is not a (primary) thing. The expression all-nanaic is more appropriate in this respect since we could read "all nanaic beings" instead of "all-nanaic being". In both cases the function of all in all-nanaic is different from that of all in all-ananic. The all-nanaic consists of all primary things that are nanaic in at least one respect, whereas the all- ananic is a single primary thing that is ananic in all (original) respects in which it is catenal. The all-ananic is the end of the all-nanaic in that it determines as an ideal the direction in which each thing has to aim in order to be nanaic. The all-ananic is also the end of the all-nanaic in that no nanaicity would be required, and would even be possible anymore, if the state of complete or maximum ananicity were permanently attained. This would result in the end of the existence of the all-nanaic, since no primary thing were then, and could then be, nanaic anymore. While the all-ananic is the principal being which represents neutrality proper, the all-nanaic is the principal (set of) being(s) which represents the forces contributing to the establishment or maintenance of neutrality, and of neutral-inclusivity. While the all-ananic is the supreme being, the all-nanaic is an inferior being (or a collection of inferior beings). The all-ananic supreme being is 'all-good' if good is a purely evaluative and perfective term; it is neither good nor bad in the sense of beneficent or maleficent; and it has no creative or destructive powers. The all-nanan, on the other hand, is not good in the purely evaluative, perfective sense of good, but it is good in the sense of beneficent when this enhances a sentient being's neutral well-being. Moreover, in its striving for ananicity the all-nanan has great creative power as well. Altho no reasonable person can take the moldy creationist belief seriously which fancies "a creator of the universe" in terms of one personal being or other primary thing, we must recognize the creative force or forces of nature which have shaped the world and the things in it as they are (or as they used to be before their destruction). As regards the material, nonbiological aspect of the world: this is controlled by gravitation and other nanaic physical forces. As regards life systems on Earth and possibly other planets: order and evolution in these systems portray a maintenance of neutrality (balance, equilibrium, symmetry, equality) and a search for this state (adaptation, acclimatization) which are characteristic of nanaicity. The physical, chemical and biological forces concerned are all determined by the same 'nanapolar li'. Therefore, the creative force or 'creator' behind the meaningful development of our world as an orderly system forms part of the all-nanaic. The universal nanaicity exhibited by this 'creator' is not different from the relatively small-scale, ananormative striving for neutrality we are urged to ourselves. It is precisely by being nanaic in some respect that we, as persons, become part of this creative principal being ourselves. A particular thing can be creative or nanaic in many different respects and with regard to many different other things. That is why the all-nanan has countless appearances. It is the nanaic substance of the universe as a whole, and the nanaic substance in every separate field. If neutrality in that field corresponds to nondiscrimination and inclusivity, then the all- nanaic has at least as many appearances as there are facets of inclusivity. Thus one could speak of "the nanan of races", "of sexes", "of nations", "of languages", and so on. The nanan then designates the nanaic or a being that symbolically represents all primary things that are nanaic in the field concerned. The so-called 'nanan of races' includes everything that furthers racial nondiscrimination, everything that maintains racial inclusivity and everyone who fights racism. The nanapolar field in question may also be a geographic one. Such a geographic field is, for example, that of a general natural or cultural feature, or that of one particular place or area. Thus the 'nanan of the mountains' represents everything that is nanaic in any high, mountainous area, while the 'nanan of the polders' represents everything that is nanaic in any low area reclaimed from the sea or other body of water. If Loandhiland is the (fictitious) proper name of a country, the 'Nanan of Loandhiland' represents the nanaicity in, or of, Loandhiland. (Compare the Nanan of the Bleen Sea and the Nanan of the Yellored Desert.) Finally, the nanapolar field in question may be defined, too, in terms of a more specific, corrective value of neutralism. All beings that are nanaic because they are beneficent, for instance, are thus 'nanans of beneficence', or are symbolically part of one 'nanan of beneficence'. When good is not only used in a perfective, but also in a corrective, evaluative sense, the all-nanaic is, as it were, a 'pannanaon' of many different, good beings; that is, a 'pannanaon' of beings that are beneficent, of beings that promote interpersonal equality, of beings that combat exclusivism, and of beings that are nanaically good in any other respect. 3.3 BOTH TOGETHER 3.3.1 TWO FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLS From a purely presentative point of view the supreme being is a primary thing among primary things with only neutral catenated predicates which may or may not exist in reality. From a symbolic point of view the all-ananic (if it exists) or the image of the all-ananic (if the all-ananic itself does not exist) represents the highest of highest, that is, normative supremeness. Logically speaking, we do not need the image of an all-neutral being to represent the system of values based on the ananorm. Yet, the distinction between what the supreme being is and what it represents is so small, and the relationship between the thing proper and the matter symbolized so direct, that the all-ananic cannot be considered a kind of symbol like all other kinds of symbol. It is a fundamental symbol which can be straightforwardly deduced, given our basic neutral-inclusive premises. It forms part of a fundamental symbolism and as such also contributes to the intelligibility of the presentative system of neutral-inclusive values. When comparing its presentative with its representative significance, the position of the all-nanaic is not in every respect the same as that of the all-ananic. Unlike the all-ananic, the all-nanaic unites countless (nanaic) primary things that did, do and will exist in reality. Among them are human beings and other primary things which are as concrete as human beings themselves. For the rest, however, the all-nanaic's position is the same. Its image is, logically speaking, not necessary either, but also here the distinction between what it is and what it represents is so small, and the relationship so direct, that the all-nanaic has to be regarded as a fundamental symbol of neutral and inclusive thought as well. On the fundamental model the two principal beings are reasoned combinations of primary or secondary things with a unique, inherent significance; on the symbolic model these principal beings derive their significance from their representation of neutrality proper and neutral-directedness respectively. It is in this way that the all-ananic as the supreme symbol of perfect neutrality and the all-nanaic as the universal symbol of neutral- directedness make it possible to bridge the gap between fundamental and symbolic neutralism. 3.3.2 WHETHER TO ADDRESS ONESELF TO A PRINCIPAL BEING The chance of getting rain does not increase by praying for rain. From a purely physical angle praying is a senseless activity. And yet, it would not testify to our inclusive stance, if we did not recognize that there is more to an act like addressing oneself to a principal being, whether it is called "praying" or something else. Moreover, from the same physical angle there is no essential difference between praying and such an act as wishing someone a good time, for example, a good night or a happy New Year. Both praying and wishing involve some sort of request (even when only thanking a god this time). In neither case the chance of fulfilment of what is prayed for, or of what is wished for, (also in the future when now only expressing gratitude) is, physically speaking, increased by the expression of such a request. Altho praying to a god may be a theocentrist practise based on the supernaturalist belief that prayers will have a positive effect in an immediate sense (but not necessarily at the time of praying), addressing themselves to a principal being can for certain people under certain circumstances have a profound symbolic and psychosocial significance. It can have such a symbolic significance in that it emphasizes the special relationship with the principal being concerned and the ideals it represents. Those who formally express their hope, wish or thanks thus try to symbolically come closer to an eminent being which has, perhaps, ostensibly remained at too great a distance. The act of addressing oneself to a mightier being than oneself can have a psychological significance in that it may be a way to express, and possibly relieve, one's feelings of helplessness. Furthermore, the act of formally expressing a wish together with other people, while everyone is addressing 'imself to the same principal being may have an important social function which must not be underestimated. (This can precisely be the strategic power of a common proper name such as God for the very dissimilar principal beings believed in by people of different religious persuasions.) Even the most austere, positivist rationalist cannot deny that those who address themselves to the same principal being (or name) unite themselves, that is, unite themselves under the same ideals (or under the same inane concepts) symbolized by, or in, the image of that principal being (or name). Maybe, the act of addressing oneself to a principal being does not really create a relationship with that principal being, but it does create a more intense relationship with all others living under the same denomination. Our veridicalism only requires here that we do not take literally what must be understood symbolically. The symbolic itself may, then, be said to have a psychosocial meaning. It is not neutral to be prayed to, or otherwise addressed. And it does not make sense to specially ask something from a being that does not have a more than average power, or to specially thank it for something it cannot have done, or cannot have done better than the average other person or object. Therefore the supreme should not be prayed to or otherwise addressed, even if it exists or existed. Anyone purporting to address the supreme being does in fact address an inferior being. Not only should the supreme being not be prayed to or addressed, since it has no creative or nanaic power, it could not even be suggested in a prayer or formal wish that the all-neutral being aid those who have fallen victims to unananicity or unnanaicity. The all- neutral being and its image are not only superior to prayers but also to the possible, nontheocentrist, non-supernaturalist analogs of prayers. In our relationship with the supreme being we ourselves should, similarly, be superior to every cult of requesting and thanking. Whereas the all-ananic is too high in a normative respect to address oneself to, the all-nanaic is a mighty entity which in principle can help mortal humans and others when they need its assistance. The vigor of the all- nanaic, or of a particular nanan, may thus stimulate the desire in certain individuals to more or less formally address themselves to this Ananormative principal being. Such an act or practise should be considered purely symbolic. And never should anyone address 'imself in a denominational context to a nanan that can or could address 'imself to others too as this is bound to degenerate into honor exism. Tho it may theoretically be possible to address oneself to oneself, addressing oneself to something creates in the first place a distance between oneself and that other being. This is even more apparent when the other being is something to be religiously honored or loved. The distance between the adherent of the DNI and the two principal beings will not be enlarged because of some requirement that they should be honored; and, so far as the all-ananic is concerned, not because of some requirement that it should be prayed to or loved. However, so far as the all-nanaic is concerned the act or practise of addressing oneself to, or perhaps 'loving', the all- nanaic or a particular nanan, could be responsible for a greater distance between the all-nanaic and the individual adherent. Such an effect would be very regrettable indeed. For unlike the principal beings of theocentrist denominations, the principal beings of the Norm are not there to be honored, loved or prayed to. On the contrary, they are there to share their qualities and to become part of. 3.3.3 THE DUAL CHARACTER OF THE DNI'S PRINCIPAL SYMBOLISM The adoption of the ananorm has led us in two different directions: firstly, to the province of neutrality proper or ananicity; and secondly, to the province of neutral-directedness or nanaicity. As the fields of neutrality proper and neutral-directedness do not overlap, there is a basic difference in character between these fields. This dual character of both fundamental and symbolic, neutral thought shows best when comparing the all-ananic with the all-nanaic for a number of facets. (The last three in the following list will be dealt with in Chapter Five.) THE ALL-ANANIC THE ALL-NANAIC (the supreme being) (the all-nanan) ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ normative supremeness normative inferiority (nonsupremeness) neutrality (ananicity) unneutrality, both positive and negative nan-nanapolarity nanapolarity, positivity (nanaicity) passiveness activeness preservation creation, improvement rest motion, movement situational goodness ethical goodness, beneficence centricity direction confinement to one location universal presence one primary thing: indefinite number of primary things: singularity, individuality plurality either personal or nonpersonal both personal and nonpersonal possible existence indisputable existence idealism realism must not be addressed or prayed to can be addressed contemplation, meditation celebration end of summer or winter beginning of summer or winter beginning of spring or fall end of spring or fall The above juxtaposition demonstrates that the neutral and the neutral- directed together include almost every possible quality or state of affairs in the fields they cover. Even negativity is included under nanapolar negativity; and positivity under nanapolar positivity and under nanaicity, which is a positive predicate. There is, of course, one important exception. It is that neither principal being represents non-nanapolar unneutrality. And with the exclusion of non-nanapolar unneutrality neither fundamental symbol represents situational or ethical badness or evil. In other words, neither symbol represents situational deterioration and destruction. Since it has been a well-considered choice in the doctrine of neutral- inclusivity to assign a special status to the neutrality of the catena rather than to the, or a, negativity or positivity, the exclusion of non- nanapolar unneutrality, which is indirectly the result of it, cannot be regarded as arbitrary. The fact that nonneutral, non-nanapolar predicates are secondary things is even more significant. For it means that the DNI does nowhere symbolically exclude a system of primary attributes and relations, that is, a primary thing, whether personal like ourselves or not. Even tho the DNI must make a choice in order to be a normative doctrine at all, it does not arbitrarily endow any nonpredicative thing (such as a human being) with highness, while referring other nonpredicative things (human beings) to a lower class. (This Model nowhere states --like a venom-spouting monotheist sacred book-- that certain groups of human beings are the supreme being's abomination and should be exterminated.) The dual character of neutralism follows from the condition that neutrality needs a certain type of unneutrality, namely the nanaicity to maintain, to establish or to reestablish neutrality. If the DNI exclusively permitted neutrality, unneutral conditions would remain unneutral forever, which could result in the end of all neutrality. At the same time this dual character which renders fundamental neutral thought inclusivistic also gives an inclusive appearance to the DNI's principal symbolism. The inclusive, dual character of this symbolism represents in itself the inseparability of neutral and inclusive thought. 3.3.4 A COMPARISON WITH THEODEMONIST PRINCIPAL BEINGS 3.3.4.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE SUPREME AND THE IMAGES OF GODS AND DEMONS We shall not enter the theodemonical arena in which polytheists, monotheists and atheists compete for the irrelevances of the true faith. So far as the all-neutral supreme being is concerned we recognize its value and significance as a symbol, but we do not need to know whether it exists in the actual world. So far as gods and demons are concerned we do not maintain that there is no god or demon, but we reject gods and demons or their images for what they represent in the province of norms. We do not worship any particular god or demon because the worship of a god or demon is the recognition and perpetuation of exclusivist ideology. We do not worship the supreme being because every purported worship of the supreme being is the worship of an inferior being. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Typical of theodemonist ideologies is, firstly, that the 'positive' principal beings (namely gods) are worshiped or said to be loved, and secondly, that the adherents are expected to unconditionally believe in the eternal existence of those principal beings. The latter may also apply to the 'negative' principal beings (or demons). If there is believed to be only one, or a highest, 'positive' principal being, it plays the role of a supreme being and is named "God" in this language. The belief in the true existence of such a supreme being is in general an absolute prerequisite for genuinely adhering to monotheist denominationalism. Not believing in the existence of such a god is not believing in the monotheist doctrine itself. That is why the leaders of such ideologies cannot very well tolerate any doubt about Mono's existence. Since they preach the primacy of the authoritative it is their own, earthly authority which has been doxastically derived from that of the 'Supreme Being', and which therefore depends on it. Throughout this Model many reasons have been given why the all-neutral supreme being is no god as conceived in theist systems of thought. Unlike the god of monotheism in particular, the all-neutral supreme being is not necessarily concrete or abstract, not necessarily human or superhuman, not necessarily a person and not necessarily male. Unlike the god of monotheism in particular, the all-neutral supreme being did even as a person never consider, and does even as a person not consider, one people, land or town as 'er special own, or as a people, land or town which would be 'more equal' than all others. Unlike the god of monotheism in particular, the all-neutral supreme being did even as a person never demand, and does even as a person not demand, the extermination of nonadherents or other human beings that 'e would hate too much. And unlike the god of monotheism in particular, the all- neutral supreme being did not have, and does not have, an exclusive relationship with the male members of the ruling class of a certain kind of human society as reflected in terms such as King and Lord. While the existence of the all-ananic is disputable but irrelevant, the existence of the all-nanaic is as indisputable for us as that of a god for a fervent theist. Yet, the important difference with theist ideology is now that the existence of the all-nanaic is not automatically assumed to be eternal. As its continued existence is only needed until the state of all- neutrality, or the least unneutral state possible, has been attained, the eventual neutralist ideal is the non-existence of the all-nanaic. Such cannot be said of any god! Theodemonists also want the nonexistence of the devil or demons, to be sure, but with respect to those principal beings they want their immediate nonexistence, because they are not even believed to have a function for the time being. If the creator denotes the whole of all creative beings or forces, then this 'creator' is part of the all-nanaic (if it is not to be a destroyer). But the 'creator' is not a supreme being that would be higher than the average human being. The nanaicity of the 'creator' is basically the same as the nanaicity human beings can display themselves, for the all-nanaic embraces, or can embrace, both the 'creator' and mortal human beings. Such a concept of the creation of our world cannot be found in theodemonist creeds. The all-ananic is not a god, among other things, because it may not really exist (or because we are allowed to believe that it may or does not really exist). The all-nanaic is not a god, among other things, because it may not eternally exist, tho it does exist at present. Another important reason why neither the supreme nor the inferior, principal being is a god, is that neither one can or must be worshiped. We know that the all-ananic can not be worshiped, and we also know that the all-nanaic should not be worshiped, since we should not honor (nor dishonor) according to the norm of nanhonore. Unlike theists who erect temples --whatever they may be called-- to worship their 'Supreme Being' --whatever he may be called-- or other gods, neutralists are not allowed to build a place of worship for the all-ananic or the all-nanaic, for honor and dishonor are alien to the all-neutral supreme being itself or 'imself. What they are allowed to, is to assign loci of denominational representation; that is, to dedicate certain places to the symbols of ananicity and other places to the symbols of nanaicity. It is one thing to say what qualities, attitudes or actions are, or would be, supreme, good or right; it is another thing to claim that one and the same primary thing would be involved in all of them. But too often the supreme being is, or has been, equipped with an artificial and gaudy collection of attributes, some of which might go together and some of which could never belong to one and the same outfit. Especially monotheist religions love combining the supreme being and the creator in one divine being. But a primary thing with such a concoction of attributes does not exist in the light of our veridicalist model. On this model there does not even exist one primary thing that comprises everything that is nanaic in the universe, let alone one primary thing that comprises both everything that is nanaic and everything that is supreme. What comes, perhaps, nearest to the traditional concept of a god in the fundamental symbolism of neutral thought is the notion of a nanan. A nanan does not only exist, it may be highly beneficent and very powerful. Its existence does matter too in that its nanaicity is relevant to a particular form of neutrality or to neutrality in general. A nanan can also have a special relationship with a particular people, region or place, just as it can have a special relationship with a particular mode of neutrality or facet of inclusivity. But such a nanan is always one of a multitude of nanans. The 'pannanaon' of 'gods' acting in favor of neutral-inclusivity is practically inexhaustible. To take one of its members and to regard it as a god, because it has been/is/will be so extraordinarily good in a particular respect, or for a particular class of sentient beings, is in itself no deadly sin. It is when such a god (or group of gods) is claimed to be the sole one, and when the attributes of such a god (or group of gods) are said to be perfect in themselves, that theism degenerates into a system of reverence for the exclusive and the extreme, a system of reference for the exclusive and the extreme. 4 OBJECTS OF NONFUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLISM 4.1 NEUTRALISTIC AND COMPATIBLE SIGNS 4.1.1 THE NANAPOLARITY CATENA Neutral-inclusive thought is characterized by three critical steps. When taking the neutralist starting point (rather than the relevantist one, as we have done in the Book of Fundamentals), the first step is that of assigning the highest normative value to the neutral predicate, and lower values to unneutral predicates. The second step is the realization that there are two sides to the neutral ideal: neutrality proper and the striving for neutrality, which is not neutral in itself. And the third step is the recognition of the inseparability of neutral and inclusive thought. It is on the grounds of this model that every symbol which is, strictly speaking, only neutralistic does represent the ideal of inclusivity as well. The distinction between neutrality proper and the striving for neutrality corresponds to the distinction between an original catena and its neutral- directedness catena. While neutrality proper (ananicity) is the central predicate of an original catena, the striving for this neutrality is the positivity of the neutral-directedness catena of such an original catena. (Its neutrality is nan-neutral-directedness, and its negativity un-neutral- directedness.) This neutral-directed (nanapolar) striving is purely directional and can therefore be represented by an arrow. In a one- dimensional space in which neutralness is represented by a point, the striving for neutralness has two directions: one from the one extreme to the center, and the other from the opposite extreme to the center. Since the catena is analogous to a one-dimensional space (that is, a line), a line with a distinct point in the center can be considered representing a catena (of which the neutrality corresponds to the distinct point). The positivity of the neutral-directedness or nanaicity catena can be superimposed on this image of the original catena by adding an arrow which represents the striving for neutrality thru positivity (increase) and an arrow which represents the striving for neutrality thru negativity (decrease). The two arrows will meet in the one point representing the neutrality of the original catena. The central sign which emerges in this figure looks like a multiplication sign (X), and the image has now become two-dimensional. Altho the total figure consisting of the straight line and the central sign ( ---X--- ) is still rather primitive, it does already symbolize both aspects of neutral thought, namely the recognition of the special status of (ananormative) neutrality and the significance of all (ananormative) striving for neutrality. The simple figure formed by two arrows meeting in the middle is a visual and/or tactual symbol of neutrality, nanapolarity and the positivity and negativity of the original catena thru which neutrality can be achieved. It represents the whole basic or other original catena and the nanapolar predicate related to this catena. We shall call this concrete symbol "the (Nanapolarity) Catena" or "nanacatena" for short. (Since the symbol itself, or a concrete object, is not a catena, (Nanapolarity) Catena is a name to be capitalized.) Where the nanacatena is present, this is a nonfundamental sign of the belief in ananicity and nanaicity. (Nonfundamental in that it cannot be compared to the two fundamental symbols of the DNI.) The nanacatena is not the symbol of a nanaicity or neutral-directedness catena, because such a symbol would not only represent neutral-directedness but also nan- and un- neutral-directedness. The center of the Nanapolarity Catena symbolizes neutrality; the left of it positivity --the further to the left the more positive-- and the right negativity --the further to the right the more negative--, or vice versa. To indicate the degree of negativeness and positiveness we can make the 'line' thicker and thicker as we move from the neutral point. The degree of unneutralness is now also visualized or tactualized (that is, made tactual or tangible). Negative unneutrality and positive unneutrality must not be differentiated in a nanacatena, for they have exactly the same value according to the ananorm. Suffice it that one is on the sinister, the other on the dexter side of the center. The original left and right lines which have become surfaces may be bordered by a straight line or by a (part of a) curve such as a circle. When these surfaces are bordered by straight lines, the nanacatena consists of two equicrural, but not equilateral, triangles of which the top angles meet in a point marked by the central sign of the nanacatena (the X sign which emerges when an arrow is mirrored). The central sign can only stand out when the base of the identical triangles is made considerably shorter than the sides. Also when the surfaces are bordered by curves, or parts of curves, this central sign has to show clearly. The surfaces themselves (representing the unneutralities) may be either filled in or left blank. When filled in the variant of the nanacatena may be called "solid", when left blank "open". Figure S.4.1.1.1 shows a number of open and solid variants of the nanacatena, and one intermediate, dashed variant. If the surfaces are not achromatic (white, grey and/or black), they should represent all colors of a spectrum with (yellowish) green as the central color at either side of the sign of neutrality. Every variant of the Nanapolarity Catena must comply with the basic rules for this figure in order to be recognizable as a symbol of neutralism, and therefore also of inclusivism. For people who have the power of sight the Catena may represent the DNI in a visible way by displaying it on a piece of paper or fabric, for instance; for people who have a sense of touch the Catena may represent the DNI in a tangible way, such as by means of a sculpture or a carving in relief. It is not necessary to present one, technically and esthetically entirely worked-out, final shape of the nanacatena. Within the frame given here several possibilities remain. What is important is that the Nanapolarity Catena is --irrespective of individual variations-- truly symbolic of the quintessence of the DNI. 4.1.2 SIGN LANGUAGE SYMBOLISM Spoken language does not only distinguish itself from written language but also from sign language. Sign language is a distinct means of communication making use of parts of the body or of artificial systems such as telegraphic codes, radio signals and flags. The one- and two-handed manual alphabets for finger spelling to the deaf belong to a field of communication where written language and sign language seem to overlap. In this section we will only consider the language of corporal signs which do not imitate a written script, while not making use of other things or means than one's own fingers, hands or other parts of the body. Marks or figures on one's body, such as tattoos, are also corporal signs in a way, but they require other things or means in order to fix or wear them on the body. The reason that such marks or figures need not be discussed here is that the body is not an essential part of their symbolism. Thus, somebody may have an indelible nanacatena tattooed on 'er skin, but the figure itself then represents the same thing as a nanacatena on fabric or paper. Such is not to say, of course, that the choice of medium would not matter. No other material medium is closer and more one's own than the body one possesses. But a nanacatena does not need a human body, whereas human sign language of the type in hand here does. The symbolism of body signs must not be confused with the usually speciesist and sexist body symbolism of certain supernaturalists either. According to some of them the body or flesh would have to be conceived of as feminine (as opposed to the masculine mind), while at the same time being 'the Intermediary between the life of man and the Cosmos', or 'between mind and the Cosmos'. In order to foist their sevenfold --or sevenfault?-- symbolism onto the human body, orificial supernaturalists may claim to have five openings in their bodies besides their two eyes. (Perhaps they do, but then their bodies are different from those of veridicalist human beings.) Such illustrations demonstrate how body symbolists may seek a but too easy way of exhaling the spirit of physical exclusivism and supernaturalism. When it is for us the outward symmetry of the body which is, first and foremost, symbolic of neutrality, the meaning of this symmetry applies to both human and nonhuman bodies, to both male and female bodies, to both the left and the right sides, and so on and so forth. Hence, we must not only differentiate the symbolism of body signs and body symbolism, but also the forms of body symbolism which are supernaturalistic or exclusivistic and those which are neutralistic or otherwise compatible with the DNI. People who use sign language to express their thoughts, feelings and intentions often do not realize that particular signs may have, or have had, different meanings in different parts of the world. And often they do not know either that the most significant roots in many signs are to be found in religious rites and ceremonies. Thus, it is religious people who were forced to bow the head, knees or whole body in humility, to stretch out the hands in a prayer for mercy and/or to discriminate earnestly between the left and the right hands. It was also the theodemonist directorate that introduced the ceremony of the ring at weddings. Originally such a ring used to symbolize the price which had to be paid to the partner-to-be's relatives (or rather to the relatives of 'the thing to be acquired'). Many religious signs have remained or been perpetuated in secular symbolism, at least the kind of secular symbolism willing to copy and incorporate any sign, however exclusivistic its original meaning or present interpretation. As adherents of the DNI we cannot use signs of which the interpretation depends on exclusivist presuppositions or irrelevant distinctions. So we can admit no discrimination between the sinister hand and the dexter hand. For example, no adherent of the DNI shall ever take an oath when required to raise 'er left hand or 'er right hand exclusively (or an oath tainted with the verbalism of an incompatible ideology). An oath is not exclusivistic in this respect, however, if one is permitted to raise either the left or the right or, for that matter, both hands. And instead of lifting the sinister hand exclusively, or the dexter hand exclusively, one can also clasp one's hands together while taking an oath. (Altho one should then not shake the folded hands.) As to corporal signs the neutralistic symbolism is in the first place attached to the balance and symmetry of the body. That is why an obligation to raise one's right hand when formally taking an oath is unneutralistic, in addition to being exclusivistic with respect to physical laterality. (Moreover, if having to end with the phrase so help me God in a state ceremony such an oath is blatantly religionistic and supernaturalistic.) That is also why clasping one's hands together (which is a traditional sign of swearing in one part of the world) is an acceptable symbol of solemnly taking an oath. (See figure S.4.1.2.1.) Other traditional signs which keep the body balanced are a sign for friendship, one for greeting peacefully, and a sign for take it easy or please, be quiet. (See figure S.4.1.2.1 again.) While greeting one should not bow the head, unless the people involved all bow their heads to each other in the same way. Similarly, no-one ought to kiss someone else's hands or feet as part of a ceremony in which the other person is not expected to kiss one's own hands or feet. If the people involved in a ceremony all bow their heads, or kiss one another's hands or feet, this may symbolize an egalitarian respect for each other as persons. Closed, outstretched hands may be a traditional sign of peaceful greeting for some people, they represent a prayer for mercy for other people. Yet, such a traditional interpretation of a body sign does not force us to follow suit, for the body sign in itself is pure and immaculate. At the most it might be a reason not to close the hands as a sign of peaceful greeting in mixed milieus. The signs for friendship and peaceful greeting are, of course, also suitable as good-day signs. The above-mentioned symmetrical body signs are symbols with the same traditional meaning in one or more parts of the world. That they are acceptable as neutralistic symbols does not mean that asymmetrical body signs could not be employed by adherents of the DNI; it just depends on what they are supposed to stand for. A body sign representing something unneutral like happiness, unhappiness or nanaicity can be asymmetrical, but it is not allowed to manifest in its symbolism any form of laterality-based, sexual or other exclusivism. Thus, someone who is sad or glad to see someone else leave, may wave that person a farewell with one of 'er hands, so long as it does not have to be 'er right or, for that matter, left one. And the same applies to shaking someone else's hand. If a laterality-neutral way of shaking hands is not a very handy way of greeting in an environment where not everyone is right-, or not everyone left-handed, this is a good reason to dispense with such a handshake altogether. (Especially when according to the same tradition a man is expected to simultaneously kiss a woman, a woman another woman, whether they find each other attractive or not, whereas a man is not supposed to kiss another man.) This may, but need not, result in a greater physical distance between the people, or the men and women, involved. For those who like each other there are much more intimate, nonsexualist modes of greeting, even symmetrical ones, such as embracing each other, with or without kissing each other on the mouth or on the cheeks, and with or without a tap on the back or on the sides. 4.2 SYMBOLISM IN ART AND DESIGN 4.2.1 THE NEW WELTANSCHAUUNG'S IMPACT ON ART AND DESIGN 4.2.1.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE ARTISTIC ACHIEVEMENTS OF WHAT WE REJECT When we reject religion and the belief in gods or demons, in the singular or plural, some people may refer to the beauty of a certain temple or religious work of art, and ask how we cannot be deeply moved by it; they may refer to the beauty of a certain theist anthem or piece of music and ask how we cannot be deeply moved by it; they may refer to the beauty of certain religious or theodemonist literature and ask how we cannot be deeply moved by it. They will not mention the ugly temples and sculptures, the dreadful ideological paintings and music, or the paralyzation of the arts in a totally religionistic society. They will only mention their denominational doctrine as a source of artistic inspiration. When we reject the sort of political ideology which goes to extremes or which rests on partial sentiments, some people may refer to the beauty of a certain official monument or work of art, and ask how we cannot be deeply moved by it; they may refer to the beauty of a certain political anthem or piece of music and ask how we cannot be deeply moved by it; they may refer to the beauty of certain committed political literature and ask how we cannot be deeply moved by it. They will not mention the unsightly official buildings, the dreadful ideological songs and stories, or the paralyzation of the arts in a politically totalitarian society. They will only mention their political doctrine as a source of artistic inspiration. However, when we reject religion and theodemonism, and when we reject extremist, exclusivist politics, we condemn the systematic violation of truth, and the belief in what ought not to be taken to be true; we condemn the systematic violation of relevance, and the belief in what ought not to be taken to be relevant; we condemn the systematic violation of moderateness, and the belief in what ought not to be taken to be moderate. We do not defile marvelous songs or euphonious music, even when made or hailed by adherents of supernaturalism; we do not defile good prose and great poetry, even when written or read by adherents of exclusivism; we do not defile impressive buildings or fine works of art, even when designed or desired by adherents of extremism. We only repudiate the ideologies and practises expressed by them, and may only dismiss the very specific ideas and symbols inherent in them. It is not the artist as artist to be criticized, nor 'er artistic achievements to be scornful about, even tho of a different denominational or political creed. It is the fact that 'e works or worked for the wrong cause which we cannot think well of and be pleased with. What we really hold is that the artist, as every other person, should not make use of extremist symbols, should not add or omit things for exclusivist reasons, should not propagate supernaturalist ideas. It is these considerations which have been disregarded by artists who do or did not know better, or who chiefly produce or produced for the sake of money. Yet, it is these considerations alone which, when taken seriously, can make an artistic achievement both beautiful and acceptable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Competent artists and designers need not be dictated how to translate fundamental thought into art, or how to translate a program of requirements into a design. Therefore it is not necessary to elaborate in this book a complete denominational symbol system, for it is precisely part of an artist's or designer's vocation to accept the challenge to create new symbols or forms of symbolism and to utilize the symbols or symbolic tools offered to 'im in an imaginary way. Any attempt to make a generative symbol system such as the neutralist one complete would almost be as senseless as an attempt to make a complete list of all sentences that could be produced in the present language. It is one thing to tell artists and designers what they have to do, and quite another to advise them and to point out ways in which they can make use of their creative imagination or skill. One such way is a technique which in itself has nothing to do with symbolism at all. It is the method of dichotomous substitution as introduced in section 2.1.3 of the Book of Fundamentals. Three examples have been given there altho this method can be applied to any form of traditional, dichotomous exclusivism. Little fantasy is needed to take an existing case of gender-based or denominational exclusivism, for instance, and to expose it by reversing the traditional order. Much more fantasy is needed, of course, to make the result an interesting and educational one, if only because the artist manages to show that everyday life in exclusivist (sub)cultures is as ridiculous as the plot of the story or the picture 'e has presented. For those forms of art and applied art in which language plays a role the potential influence of the DNI or the Ananorm is practically unlimited. The reason is that a new weltanschauung does not only lead to a new way of life but also to a novel trend in literature and in the arts in general. Such an influence is particularly strong when the weltanschauung is that of a denominational paradigm or paradigm-to-be. It is then the herald of a culture with new norms and values, expressing itself by dint of new words and names, antitheses and metaphors. No artist or designer living in 'er own time (rather than in the past) can ignore the signs of what is to become the kernel of future denominationalism; and no artist or designer living in 'er own time can ignore the symbols of what has become the kernel of contemporary denominationalism. These symbols are for a writer primarily verbal or linguistic ones, but for artists and designers in general they can be of any type. We will now consider two examples of nonlinguistic, nonfundamental symbolism in applied art or design. The first one is an example in the field of designing clothes, the second one in the field of designing architectural structures. 4.2.2 THE CLOTHES OF A NEUTRAL-INCLUSIVE MODEL When looking at the costumes of human beings in sexually irrelevantistic cultures or subcultures, the thing which strikes the eye most is the exaggerated difference between clothes for males and for females. The marked difference between traditional androcentric costumes and traditional gynocentric costumes can not, or merely partially, be explained in terms of the difference between male and female physique. (Something that also applies to andro- and gynoforms which are mistakenly labeled "uniforms".) The on the average much greater protrusion of women's breasts and men's genitals may make some kind of dress more comfortable for women with more or less large breasts, or for men with more or less large genitals, such reasonable considerations do not seem to underly sexist thought with respect to the clothes or pieces of material females are supposed or allowed to wear, and males are supposed or allowed to wear. When sexualist etiquette is concerned with the color of people's garments, it does not proscribe a color which does not blend (or perhaps does not contrast) with the color of their skin or their hair but with that of their genitals, that is, a color which is said not to suit their gender (such as rose or bright colors for males). And when sexualist etiquette is concerned with the parts of the human body which have to be covered, it does not prescribe garments which vary with the temperature of the place of convention, but garments which are believed to match the temperament of women and the temper of men (like those exposing the legs of women and the faces of men, while hiding those of the other sex). Naturally, on the inclusivist model good taste in conduct and appearance is no sexualist taste in conduct and appearance. In a transitional society the sexualism with respect to what human beings wear or can wear, which may once have arrived under the cloak of propriety, is eventually to be uncovered to the (male or female) bone. This issue is not merely a matter of symbolic importance but a fundamental issue of gender- neutral inclusivity. (However, this fundamental says nothing about its relative importance when compared with other nonsymbolic issues.) The rejection of vestiary sexism applies both to its standard manifestation and to its inversion, like when girls or women (want to) wear so-called 'boys' or men's clothes', or vice versa. Such (desire for) transvestism is the inevitable byproduct of sexualist cultures; it is impossible in a gender- transcending culture. This does not mean that occasional transvestism could not be useful as an instance of dichotomous substitution, but solely so if it manages to break thru sexually exclusivistic fashions and expectations, rather than perpetuating and depending on them. The question of what neutral-inclusivists could wear becomes a nonfundamental one when they have doffed their irrelevantist blindfolds and want to put on a special, symbolist garment at places or times which are significant from a denominational perspective. A suitable ancient unisex garment is then the tunic as this used to be worn by men and women alike. It is a simple slip-on garment, with or without sleeves, which can be decorated, painted or cut out in such a way as to represent a neutralist or inclusivist symbol. Figure S.4.2.2.1 shows some variants of a Catena garment, that is, a garment with the nanacatena on it. The front of such a garment should be the same as the back, if the nanacatena is to be symmetrical. Whatever the neutralist tunic or other garment is decorated with, it should be long enough to cover both the breast and the genitals, unless other unisex clothes are worn which cover these parts of the body. This is to symbolize the equality of female and male, human beings. Apart from this the tunic or other garment can be less than hip-length, or so long as to cover the feet or to touch the ground. Since its design is also the same for human beings of all ages, it symbolizes the etatic equality of human beings as well. Instead of the nanacatena or another neutralist symbol, the very diverse leaves of a tree or other plant, such as the sassafras could be used to express the ideal of inclusiveness on one's clothes. The symbolic message of this natural diversity is that one unitary system can comprise members of very different appearance if even the leaves of an adult plant do not all have to possess the same shape. Obviously, a garment with sassafras leaves, or a similar inclusivist symbol, does not have to cover parts of the body which are typically male or female. For on the inclusivist account the existence of sexual differences is not denied; they are merely not regarded as relevant in some absolute, context-independent sense. 4.2.3 THE NEUTRAL-INCLUSIVE MODEL OF A BUILDING While the wearing of clothes is one way of regulating one's microclimate, the use of buildings is another. But just as the function of clothes is not only protection from the weather, so the function of buildings is not either. Preferably clothes should not only be practical but also beautiful and, if appropriate, symbolic of what the wearer does or feels, or of what 'e wants those who see 'im to do or feel. Similarly, buildings should not only be practical and beautiful, but should also be symbolic of their so-called 'function'. This 'function' is then not necessarily a practical one such as providing shelter against the rain or the sun, but anything for which the building is or will be used. In the last chapter of this book we will come to call a building or structure to be used as a communal center for both fundamentalists and symbolists an anakentron or "kentron" for short. (Kentron is what the words centrum and center derive from; it is thus both etymologically and symbolically related to the centrality of the neutral predicate.) The design of an anakentron is not a fundamental issue, but if a kentronic structure is to symbolically reflect its function, the pattern or main form of such a structure should be determined by neutralistic (or neutral-inclusivistic) symbolism. There are good possibilities of incorporating the shape of the Catena, for instance, into symbolistic architectonic structures. (Terming them "symbolistic" or "symbolic" is not to say that they could not be used as centers of fundamentalistic neutralism.) Figure S.4.2.3.1 is a presentation of two examples of nanacatenary architectonic structures. In these examples the effect of a complete Catena is achieved in two different ways: firstly, by the reflection of the longitudinal half of the Catena in water; and secondly, by the reflection of the cross-sectional half in a glass mirror. Given that the symbols of ananicity are not all the same as the symbols of nanaicity, these structures cannot only be used as whole anakentrons but also as so-called 'Halls of Nanaicity'. These Halls are to be regarded as separate kentronic structures or parts of kentronic structures dedicated to nanaic action and the symbols of corrective neutralism. (Chapter Six will give more details on kentrons and other kinds of centers.) By purposefully being given a direction to the equator an anakentron or Hall of Nanaicity is turned into a concrete symbol of global neutral-directedness. Thus 'equatored' the seats in figure S.4.2.3.1.b, for instance, will be facing south in the Northern and north in the Southern Hemisphere. (Note that such a kentronic structure is not 'oriented' to the south, let alone to an ideologically aggrandized particular place on Earth, as temples and palaces in former times.) Where and when it does not suit local conditions to have the whole building or hall face the equator, it may suffice to give only the (main) facade or entrance that direction. On the equator itself two equal entrances opposite each other (one on the north and one on the south side) could be symbolic of the same neutral-directedness. Some names for nanacatenary structures are very appropriate in the event that they are to be used as anakentrons, but not in the event that they are to be used as Halls of Nanaicity. (While the Book of Fundamentals prohibits any kind of onomastic exclusivism.) Thus, names which have harmony, oneness or wholeness in them are more suitable for anakentrons, whereas names with nanaic(ity) or (nana)polar(ity) in them are more suitable for Halls of Nanaicity. If the shape of the structure is also to have a bearing on its name, then names with reflection(al), mirror(ed) and symmetrical deserve special attention. Examples for a kentron which is nanacatenary in design are then Anakentron of Reflectional Harmony / Oneness / Wholeness or Anakentron of Symmetrical Harmony; examples for such a Hall of Nanaicity are Hall of Nanaic Reflection or Hall of Mirrored Polarity. 5 DENOMINATIONAL OBSERVANCES 5.1 FORMS OF ACTION AND NONACTION, THOUGHT AND NONTHOUGHT 5.1.1 THE MEANING OF DENOMINATIONAL OBSERVANCES The term observance has several meanings. As to our denominational doctrine it has two meanings: a fundamentalist besides a symbolist one. The fundamentalist meaning is that of act or instance of obeying, or conforming one's action or practise to, a rule. In this sense every adherent of the DNI has simply to observe three rules: the veridicalist principle of truth, the neutralist principle of relevance and the relevantist principle of neutrality. The symbolist meaning of observance, on the other hand, is customary practise or ceremony or act or instance of following a custom, of performing certain institutionalized actions or ceremonies, or of celebrating or solemnizing after a customary form. The tradition, custom or ceremony in this definition do not refer to a social or cultural norm of following a fundamental principle in general but to more specific systems of social or cultural norms. To the extent that such a system is symbolic, the performance of a traditional ceremony or action is not even a specific way of observing a fundamental rule in a direct sense. If contributing to fundamental values at all, symbolist observances only have such an effect indirectly. When speaking of "denominational observances" in this book, we will refer to symbolic observances, such as the celebration of denominational feast- days and the solemnization of one's communion with nature and with other people. In our denominational doctrine these observances can be clearly distinguished from the fundamental ones, something that is often impossible with respect to a religious observance. Thus, when the purport of a religious feast is not just the commemoration of a certain event but the honoring of a particular deity, the observance of the rule to periodically honor that deity may be a fundamental, intrinsic duty in the religion concerned. The neutral-inclusivist position with regard to symbolic observances is that they must not, on the whole, promote unneutralism, exclusivism, supernaturalism or authoritarianism. Preferably they should contribute to the advancement of the Ananormative ideals to a noticeable degree, at least by enhancing the influence of the Norm itself. Some early readers of this Model might find the attempt to introduce 'new traditions' self-contradictory, but the contradiction at issue is then merely one in terms. For what are introduced here are proposals for what symbolists should or can observe, not a prediction of what they will observe. It is only after neutralists have indeed observed one or more of these proposals on a certain scale and for a certain time that one can rightfully speak of "a tradition" or "custom". That, however, does not affect the coherence and the value of the original proposal. Given that a symbolist proposal (whether it has to do with denominational observances or other forms of symbolism) is coherent and valuable, it may not yet be accepted in the course of time, because other, comparable suggestions may be made at a later moment which are also coherent and more valuable. This does not render the original proposal unacceptable, only unaccepted. Since the DNI's denominational symbolism is optional, nonacceptance is in itself nothing to be concerned about (providing that the nonacceptance of neutral-inclusivist symbols does not go with the acceptance or perpetuation of exclusivist or other incompatible symbols). The sole thing to be concerned about is that alternative proposals which are accepted, and which will become traditional in the future, are as good or better. The kind of denominational observance which will be elaborated most in this chapter is the observance of suprapersonal, special days. We will treat of this form of nonfundamental symbolism in the next division. Suprapersonal special days must be distinguished from personal special days like the day someone is cremated or buried. A ceremony which can be held on such a day will be discussed in the last section of this division. In the two preceding sections we will first consider states of thought, nonthought and thoughtful action which are in a symbolic way 'deeper' than usual, or which are in a symbolic way 'closer' than usual to other living or existing beings, or to living beings that have died. 5.1.2 MEDITATION It was pointed out in section 3.3.2 that praying may be a theocentrist practise, but that the act of addressing oneself to the all-nanaic could have a profound symbolic and/or psychosocial influence even for non- supernaturalistic normists. In that respect it is not different from expressing a hope, a wish or thanks; and in that respect it is not different from meditation or contemplation, particularly when engaged in together with other people. The significance of all such activities is first of all psychosocial: they do not have any physically caused effect on the present, veridicalist account. Meditation or contemplation are nothing supernatural in themselves, just as wishing someone a good time is nothing supernatural in itself. Meditation is both a 'natural' way of thinking and a 'natural' way of not thinking. As a way of thinking it is the deep thought of someone engaged in contemplation or reflection; as a way of not thinking it is the mental tranquillity of someone endeavoring to realize 'emptiness' or perfect harmony of the mind. Meditation can also be a temporary or periodic activity or --as has been said-- aim at being 'a constant background in the midst of other material and mental activities'. Hence, there are several different forms of meditation ranging from 'nonthought' to 'deep thought'. And even as nonthought meditation is not meant to actively suppress thoughts, but --as has also been said-- to be 'a complete response' to external conditions. Meditative thought thus differs from nonmeditative thought in that it does not respond to external conditions in a partial way, and in that it is not swayed one way or another by emotions. This, however, is not what distinguishes it from inclusive thought (or nonthought). Therefore it cannot only be the content of the thought that counts. To be meditative there is the experience of the thought process itself, as something purging or elevating 'the mind' -- which presupposes that meditation must be an activity amidst other mental or nonmental activities. Moreover, to become an observance, whether denominational or not, it has to be practised as a constant or periodic activity. Insofar as the content or purpose of meditative thought are inclusivistic or neutralistic, meditation is acceptable both as a one-time activity and as a denominational observance. But whether it concerns the 'complete response' of the inclusive variant, or the 'one-pointed concentration' of the neutral one, in both cases meditation is more symbolic of nonactive neutral- inclusivism than of active neutral-inclusivism. Also historically meditation is an activity engaged in by people with a protoneutralist and/or protorelevantist (and supernaturalist) world-view. Every precaution should thus be taken that neutral-inclusivists who regard meditation as a denominational observance will not drift from nonactive adherence towards nonadherence, that is, the nonadherence of those who entertain protoneutralist, protorelevantist or supernaturalist beliefs. 5.1.3 COMMUNION The realization of the Norm starts with, or is accompanied by, a closeness in thought with all other living or existing beings, that is, communion with nature, or with nature and culture. For the active adherent such communion is an act or instance of sharing both pleasure and pain or suffering with all sentient beings. As a form of mental intercourse the experience of communion may be the result of a meditative effort, but the fundamental significance of the experience is likely to be greater when it is the result of a social effort or of a practical deed. As a social occasion the observance of communion may take the shape of a reflection uttered in the company of other people. If a common reflection demands our attention for the well-being of fellow- adherents persecuted or discriminated against because of their denominational convictions, it at once resembles and surpasses the sort of theocentrist prayer in which religious totalitarians or discriminators express compassion for the lot of cobelievers living in countries ruled by party-political totalitarians. An example of such a normistic reflection is: "Let us think of all those who suffer for their denominational convictions, wherever they are; and of all those who, of whatever kind they may be, are kept in the grips of exclusivity and extremity. Let us not forget that our siblings persecuted or actively discriminated against have succeeded in making their presence known and felt for the sake of truth, relevance and neutrality. May this strengthen the convictions of all of them and renew their commitment to the Ananorm. Let us hope that they will have the vigor and courage to eventually cast off the yoke of political oppression and religionism, and that they will win their persecutors or discriminators to a new insight, to a genuine and inclusive siblinghood indeed." In the above reflection the closeness in thought is with people who are still alive. But especially when 'e has just died, and when 'er body is being cremated or buried, we may also want to express our closeness in thought with a dead person. In the next section we will discuss a form of symbolism related to the cremation or burial of such a person's body. 5.1.4 A FUNERAL CEREMONY 5.1.4.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE FINAL ANAGNORISIS ( The silence of ...** has become eternal. ( The Norm remains as the source that will never cease to inform and to inspire. )*** )* It is the final anagnorisis, the recognition of all-neutralness, which brings everything to rest, and whose sole accompaniment is complete silence. * to be commenced with in the case of death ** a name or, for instance, our sibling *** may be deleted ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since dying is something all of us will do, or that will happen to all of us, an observance held for a person who has died, does in no way discriminate between different sorts of people, and is therefore not exclusivistic. Maybe, being born is also something that happened to all of us, but it happened to us as human bodies, not as human people. When we speak of "denominational observances", it is people who perform a certain ceremony or who follow a certain custom, in this case because they adhere to a particular denominational doctrine. This is something that can be said of a person who has just died, or of a person who is voluntarily going to join us, it is not something that can be said of an infant. To have oneself cremated or buried under the denomination of the Ananorm is not an intrinsic duty; what is the intrinsic duty of a neutral-inclusivist is that 'e must not allow 'imself or 'er fellow-adherents to be cremated or buried under an incompatible denomination. Thus, no neutral-inclusivist shall have the emblem of a supernaturalist, exclusivist and/or extremist ideology on 'er urn or grave, nor shall such an emblem be present at 'er funeral. It is only when a common ceremony is held for people of different ideological backgrounds that the emblem of another ideology may be displayed on a footing of equality with the nanacatena or another adequate symbol emblematic of the Ananormative ideals. In the event that we do part from a dead person under the denomination of the Norm, the ceremony will usually, but not necessarily, be held before or during the cremation or burial of the corpse. Neither eulogistic nor dyslogistic speeches should be delivered at such a ceremony. Instead of eulogizing the dead person as in many religious or exclusivist observances, the Dao of Nanhonore may be read or sung, a variant of the Dao, any other canonical prose poem, and/or any poem or piece of prose whose content does not violate the principles of the Ananormative order. The neutral-inclusive funeral ceremony should be centered on one or more neutral-inclusive themes. The first, and perhaps sole, person to choose or to have chosen these themes is the person for whom the observance is held 'imself. This includes the choice of the (variant of the) Dao of Nanhonore and/or another poem or piece of prose, and the music to be played, if any. If the death of the person (or persons) concerned is specially connected with the struggle for the realization of Ananormative ideals, it may fit the occasion very well to read the last one or two (noncanonical) paragraphs of the chapter Life and Nonlife. This is the passage in the Book of Fundamentals which precedes the Dao of Nanhonore. Someone who wants to be cremated or buried under the neutral-inclusive denomination may also wish the ceremony to take place in complete silence, and possibly also in (almost) complete dark. If the ceremony does not take place in complete silence, the Final Anagnorisis, or a variant of it, should be read or sung to usher in at least a moment of silence. The term anagnorisis in the final anagnorisis stands for recognition of (all- )neutrality. Symbolically, it is when all turbulence has ceased, when all impertinences are ignored, when all disputes have been settled, when all doubt has been removed, that pure perfection finally is, or can be, recognized, that is, anagnorized. Ultimately there is no false or irrelevant anagnorisis, and it is ancient symbolism (or knowledge) that every true anagnorisis ushers in stillness. It ushers in a stillness which supersedes all physical or emotional unrest and all uncertainty of belief. Not only are unneutrality, irrelevance and falsehood absent when anagnorisis is brought about, neutrality, relevance and truth are, then, not even spoken of anymore. It is this silence --the silence observed after the Final Anagnorisis has been read or sung-- which is the most solemn way of marking the end of a person's corporeal existence, the end of both pleasure and pain, when all personal hopes have been extinguished and all personal fears stilled. 5.2 SPECIAL DAYS OF SUPRAPERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE 5.2.1 A QUATERNARY METRIC CALENDAR The day that a life partner, a parent or child, a friend, or someone else one has loved or known well, dies or is cremated or buried, is a special day. Yet, it is a personal special day, that is, a day which is different from all other days for a particular person or group of people. Such a day must not be confused with a day which is special for suprapersonal reasons. Every planet revolving around the Sun or a sun, and rotating on its own axis has such suprapersonal special days. On Earth a year is the period of about 365¼ solar days required for one revolution around the Sun. This year has two equinoxes (when the Sun is said to cross the equator) and two solstices (when the Sun's distance from the equator is greatest and it returns). During the equinoxes day and night are of equal length everywhere on Earth; during the solstices the difference between the length of the day and that of the night is maximal. Equinoxes and solstices thus divide the solar year in four equal parts, that is, quarters. Each quarter starts on what must naturally be called "a Sunday", that is, an equinoctial or solstitial quarter day. Custodians of rather lunatic, ancient calendars may want us to believe that an equinox or solstice need not fall on a 'Sunday' at all, but could fall on a Monday or other day of the week, and that it even need not fall on the same date every year. They then refer to a collection of archaic calendars which are solar, lunar or some mixture of the two, and which are divided into twelve months of 28, 29, 30 or 31 days without any relationship between the day of the month and the day of the week. The historically most widely used one of them is a calendar which was introduced by an imperial government and later altered one time by the duce of a then-powerful, multinational temple organization. Most names of the months of this religious-imperial calendar are either of an exclusivist (imperialist) or of a supernaturalist (polytheist) origin. And those which are not, but refer to the ordinal number of the month, are wrong (like Seventh Month or September for the ninth month). Needless to say that not only the quarter days, but also the first day of the year and of each month can fall on any day of the week according to this religious-imperial calendar, and so can every other day of the month. Those who are willing to use and defend this crackpot calendar for perpetuity may still label it "a system" nevertheless, just as they used to call, or still call, the collection of gallons, stones, miles and inches "a system". Since such obsolete calendars (and units of measurement) cannot be taken seriously, apart from the fact that they are not, and have never been in universal use, we must first devote some time to the method for determining the dates of the observance of special days. A standard solar year counts 365 days. If each quarter is to have a whole number of days, three quarters will consist of 91 days and one of 92 days. Furthermore, if the regular succession of days is to remain uninterrupted within the calendar year, the extra day will have to be the last day of that year. Now, 91 days is only divisible into 7x13 or 13x7 days. Since we have no reason here to deviate from traditional usage, we will call the period of seven days "a week". (The alternative of taking a period of 13 days as the smallest subdivision of a quarter longer than a day is less attractive, and would leave us with 7 'months' of 52 or 53 days.) So the whole year contains 51 weeks of 7 days and 1 week of 8 days. A leap year contains one more week of 8 days, namely the week at the end of the second quarter, half-way the year. Because the total number of weeks is 52, the equivalent of the traditional 'month' is a period of exactly 4 weeks. There are thirteen of these months: 12 months of 28 days (once every four years 11 of 28) and 1 month of 29 days (once every four years 2 of 29). The calendar here described is not a haphazard product of political or religious history, but is founded upon natural measures of time. Therefore it may be called "a metric calendar". Properly speaking, it is then 'metric' because it relates to (natural) measurement, not because it would relate to the meter as a measure of length. Yet, in a looser sense there is a relationship between the metric calendar and the meter or the metric system. Firstly, the meter was originally the ten millionth part of one fourth of the length of a meridian. This meridian is an earthly measure of length, as a solar year of 365¼ days is an earthly measure of time; and this meridian was first divided into 4 (not 10 or 100) equal parts, as we ourselves have also first divided the year into 4 (almost) equal parts. Secondly, the metric calendar stands to a calendar like the religious-imperial one as the metric system stands to a series of weights and measures like the old imperial 'system' of square feet, fathoms, scruples and suchlike. Given that the meridian was first divided into four equal parts, the metric system of weights and measures is a decimal system. Unlike this system the metric calendar is quaternary in that four quarters make up a year, and in that four weeks make up a month. (A predecessor of the religious-imperial calendar tried to be decimal: it used to have a year of 300 days, divided into 10 months. Much later a competitor of the religious-imperial calendar was introduced which had decades of 10 days, but its decimal regime did not reach further than this. Having 12 months of 3 decades the 5 complementary days were set aside for political celebration. No wonder that calendar did not last much longer than one decade of 10 years.) The first day of the year, New Year's Day, should be a Sunday. Of the four Sundays we shall assume that it is the Solstitial Day which is the Midwinter Day in the northern, and the Midsummer Day in the southern hemisphere. (The other Solstitial Day may be chosen instead.) Granting that this day is the first week-day of the first week, all other days of the year can now be determined by one figure indicating the number of the week (from 1 to 52) and one figure indicating the number of the week-day (from 1 to 8). For example, if X is the year, X-10-5 refers to the fifth day of the tenth week. This day is always the fifth day of the week, whatever year it may be. The metric calendar is a calendar of fixed week-days: the anniversary of any event always takes place on the same day of the week. (This disposes of the loony diaries which were, or still are, good for one particular year only, and which show on what days of the week dates will fall in the new year. Such diaries did, or still do, at the same time remind the general public of religious and political, supernaturalist or exclusivist holidays, and sometimes of no less than the birthdays of the members of a whole family revered by subservient nationals who seem to have nothing on the agenda more worthy of attention. It also disposes of so-called 'perpetual' calendars, since the metric calendar itself is perpetual.) Strictly speaking, months are superfluous. Yet, it is easier to locate 1 out of 13 divisions in the mind than 1 out of 52. For this reason we shall introduce names for the thirteen months of the metric calendar. Even tho we reject all onomastic supernaturalism and exclusivism (or imperialism), no new morphemes are needed for this purpose in the present language: two ancient morphemes will suffice, namely Yule and Lent. Yule's original meaning is yellow or light. It was used to refer to the return of the light after the winter solstice. We will now employ it for the whole quarter succeeding a Solstitial Day. Lent's original meaning is spring(time) and this is approximately the meaning it still has when we employ it to refer to the quarter succeeding an Equinoctial Day. That is to say, a so-called 'Northern Lent' is the period between winter and summer in the northern hemisphere (which succeeds the vernal equinox), and a 'Southern Lent' the period between winter and summer in the southern hemisphere (when it is fall or autumn in the northern one). Similarly, Northern Yule is winter in the northern and summer in the southern hemisphere, while the order is reversed in Southern Yule. By adding Early, Mid- and Late the part of the quarter a month is in can be indicated. Hence, Northern Early Yule is the month (28 days) of the first four weeks of the year, Southern Late Lent the month (29 days) of the last four. Months which lie partially in a Yule quarter and partially in a Lent one should not be called "Yule" or "Lent", however. Those containing an Equinoctial Day can also have Equinoctial in their names: Northern Equinoctial (Month) if belonging to the first six, Nothern months, Southern Equinoctial (Month) if belonging to the last six, Southern months. It goes without saying that the one month (the seventh) between the Northern months which represent the northern hemisphere and the Southern months which represent the southern hemisphere should be called "Equatorial (Month)". So the metric calendar reflects, as it were, a catena extensionality ranging from the extreme, polar north via the equator to the extreme, polar south. Also in this respect it is the first universal calendar of humankind; of humankind on Earth, that is. The following table gives the complete list of the thirteen metric months with their names and the approximate equivalents in the old religious- imperial calendar already referred to. (Names of an exclusivist or supernaturalist origin are not shown.) METRIC CALENDAR RELIGIOUS-IMPERIAL months weeks CALENDAR ---------------------------------- ---------------------------- 1 NEY Northern Early Yule 1- 4 22 XII (December)-18 I 2 NMY Northern Mid-Yule 5- 8 19 I-15 II 3 NLY Northern Late Yule 9-12 16 II-14 III (or 13 III) 4 NEM Northern Equinoctial 13-16 15 III (or 14 III)-11 IV 5 NML Northern Mid-Lent 17-20 12 IV-9 V 6 NLL Northern Late Lent 21-24 10 V-6 VI 7 EQU Equatorial (Month) 25-28 7 VI-5 VII 8 SEY Southern Early Yule 29-32 6 VII-2 VIII 9 SMY Southern Mid-Yule 33-36 3 VIII-30 VIII 10 SEM Southern Equinoctial 37-40 31 VIII-28/29 IX (September) 11 SEL Southern Early Lent 41-44 29/30 IX-26 X (October) 12 SML Southern Mid-Lent 45-48 27 X-23 XI (November) 13 SLL Southern Late Lent 49-52 24 XI-21 XII (December) Note that the first Solstitial Day is New Year's Day (or New Year Solstital Day) and the second one Midyear's Day (or Midyear Solstitial Day), which is Midsummer Day in the northern and Midwinter Day in the southern hemisphere. To indicate the month to which a week belongs, the abbreviation of the month can (but need not) be put in front of its number. X.NLY10.5, for instance, designates the fifth day of the tenth week of Northern Late Yule. Northern Late Yule is then the most detailed description: one can also say "Late Yule", "Northern Yule" or "Yule". Confusion is not possible, because there is only one week in the year with the number 10. The ordinal numbers of the days of the week do not differ from those of the first eight weeks of the year. Therefore it is handy that week-days have their own names. Obviously these names should be based on their ordinal numbers (rather than, say, on the names of local gods or monarchs). And such names are already available; they only need translation. They are: Primidi, Duodi, Tridi, Quartidi, Quintidi, Sextidi, Septidi and Octidi, which we shall translate here as Prime(day), Du(day), Tri(day), Quarti(day), Quinti(day), Sixter(day), Septer(day) and Octer(day) respectively. (Other adequate translations or names my be used instead.) Now X.10.5 is Quinti 10 of X, that is, the year X's tenth (week) Quintiday. As an extra indication one may (but need not) say "Quintiday 10 of (Northern) (Late) Yule". The Octerday is Octer 52 (of Southern Late Lent). This is New Year's Eve. In a leap year the first Octerday is Octer 26 (of Equatorial) or Midyear's Eve, and the second one New Year's Eve. It is only for these intercalary days that first is not 1 and second not 2, because the number remains the number of the week the day falls in. (It should be kept in mind that the name of the day is used with the number of the week, and not the name of the month with the number of the day as in traditional calendars.) For the early readers of this Model it is not yet known what will be the last day of the era of state religionism; only that the era of denominational or ideological inclusivity should start on the first day (of Northern Early Yule) that the Sun will pass the solstice after the abolition of the last political form of denominational or otherwise ideological exism in the world. (Similarly, the early readers' provisional calendar starts on the first Solstitial Day after the end of the Second World War, so long as no third world war has begun and ended.) The first Solstitial Day succeeding the last Monday or other weekday of the officially denominationalistic or ideologically exclusivistic era will be the New Year's Day of the year 1: EI 1.1.1, that is, Primeday 1 of the year EI 1. Hence, on the day when the Sun will pass the solstice for the first (or second) time after a universal regime of denominational or general, ideological inclusivity has been established on Earth, on that 'holy' Sunday, clocks in all civilized lands should ring in the year 1. Then, humankind as a whole will finally see the old, exclusivist system out and the new, inclusive system in. 5.2.2 THE FOUR DAYS OF NEUTRALITY The metric calendar relates earthly dates to the Sun on which all life on Earth and also the state of inorganic things depend. While our planet revolves about this incandescent body, its position changes with respect to the latitude of places on Earth. Movement is relative tho, and while it is this planet which revolves, it is as if the Sun moves across the Earth's latitudes: from the equator to the southern tropic --as we will call it--, from the southern tropic to the equator, from the equator to the northern tropic, and back to the equator. The accompanying change of seasons is one of the most significant phenomena of the natural world we live in, particularly in the temperate and moderate regions. Not only do many plants and animals around us depend on this yearly cycle in which seasons succeed each other, but also the weather and --it is sometimes said-- even the mood of human beings. Moreover, this seasonal diversity is timeless. It is as old as the age of this planet, and will remain with human beings so long as they inhabit this planet. It has also acted a major role in the life of human beings from the beginning on, or from the moment they migrated from the tropical region to temperate and colder regions. Those whose work was or is in the field have always related their activities to the time of the year, that is to the movement of the Sun. (But, naturally, calendar names such as Wine-Month, Frost-Month and Harvest-Month are territorially exclusivistic, if meant to be universal.) And they did not connect only their work with the Sun and the seasons, but their world-view, too, often reflected their immediate dependence on the land, the seasons and the Sun. Still today the life of human beings is closely related to the orderly movement of the planets about this star. This orderly movement is practically eternal, and so is the succession of seasons. The regular movement of the Sun across the Earth's latitudes epitomizes in this way the fascinating order of the whole solar system we live in, if not of nature itself. Let us now describe the relationship between the Sun and the Earth's latitudes in catenical terms. Of all these latitudes the equator is the central or neutral one; places in the northern hemisphere are located at a positive latitude, places in the southern hemisphere at a negative one, or vice versa. One of the predicates of the Sun is its position with regard to these earthly latitudes. It is in a positive position when between the equator and the northern tropic, in a neutral position when above the equator and in a negative position when between the equator and the southern tropic. This predicate concerns only the position of the Sun with regard to our own planet, and it does not have any universality, but since there is no question of any universally (known) positive, neutral and negative position, we may, being on Earth, relate the Sun to this planet and its latitudes. Altho this is an exclusive choice from the perspective of the whole universe (if there is such a perspective), it is not exclusive with regard to the situation on Earth, so long as we do not apply our conclusions or our symbols to systems greater than or outside this planet (for example, to other planets). On the Equinoctial Days (Prime 14 and 40) the Sun is above the Earth's equator and in a state of latitudinal neutrality. After these days it starts to move away from the equator. The force which causes the Sun to do this is, so far as this aspect is concerned, an unneutral-directed force, because it brings this star in a state of latitudinal unneutrality. On New Year Solstitial Day (Prime 1) the Sun reaches the southern tropic or most negative latitude, and after this moment it starts to return to the neutral latitude, the equator. The force which causes the Sun to do this is then a neutral-directed force, and a period of neutral-directedness has set in. A second period of neutral-directedness commences on Midyear Solstitial Day (Prime 27), when the Sun returns to the neutral latitude from the northern tropic or most positive latitude. In the short term, taking the span of only one year, the forces which make the Sun move from the equator to one of the tropics, and back, are both neutral-directed and unneutral-directed forces, neither sort being stronger than the other. But in the long term, taking the life of our solar system, the force which keeps the Sun moving across the Earth's latitudes keeps this star on the average above the equator by perfectly balancing the period of time it is above the positive latitudes and the period of time it is above the negative ones. The nanaic force which maintains this latitudinal neutrality of the Sun when differentiating over the life span of the solar system is, of course, nothing else than the force of gravity. It is gravitation which keeps our solar system (and also our galactic system) in an orderly condition. And it is gravitation which is the creative power behind the movement of the planets (and stars), that is, the 'creator' of nature in a physical sense. We are human beings who live in terms of years, the life span of a solar system being something practically incomprehensible for us. Having such a short life, the seasonal movement of the Sun means something to us, ephemeral as it may be compared with the life of a solar system. As throughout the universe, our world is a world of neutrality and unneutrality, of nanapolar and unnanapolar or nan-nanapolar catenality, and when the Sun is above the neutral latitude, this may be regarded as symbolic of ananicity; and when the Sun is above a positive or negative latitude, but starts to move in the direction of the equator again, this may be regarded as symbolic of nanaicity. Those for whom these symbols are meaningful may observe the special days that the Sun is above the neutral latitude, or has started to move back again from one of the extreme latitudes. So the succession of the seasons can be related to the all-nanaic and the creative, nanaic or nonnanaic, transient forces; and it can be related to the all- ananic and the neutrality or unneutrality of momentary solar positions. Yet, there is no obligation to observe the special days on which one quarter succeeds the other, because by merely observing them no-one is less or more nanaic (in a direct sense) than anyone else to whom this symbolism does not appeal. But for those who recognize these Sundays they represent ananicity and nanaicity, and can rightfully be called "Days of Neutrality". (It should be borne in mind that a name like Sunday is a nondenominational one, whereas Day of Neutrality is a denominational name typical of the DNI's symbolism. Moreover, we will discuss shortly why a Day of Neutrality is not necessarily a Sunday. If it is, however, one may always say "Sunday" instead of "Day".) The DNI does not force its symbolism on anyone, even not on an adherent of the Ananorm, but it forbids the use of symbols or the perpetuation of symbolism incompatible with the DNI's fundamental principles. This aspect of our doctrine carries especially much weight on the four quarter days, regardless of whether one personally observes the Days of Neutrality or not. Thus, no person living under the denomination of the Ananorm shall, on a Sunday in particular, accept or give away money infected with a theodemonist or party-political symbol or any other antisymbol. Thus, no person living under the denomination of the Ananorm shall, on a Sunday in particular, recognize a state constitution, law or regulation opening or closing with, or otherwise infected with, a theodemonist or party-political symbol or any other antisymbol. And thus, no person living under the denomination of the Ananorm shall, on a Sunday in particular, submit to any form of imposing religious or party-political symbols, unless resistance to religionism or political dictatorship on such a day does not serve the supreme goal of neutral-inclusivity in the end. 5.2.3 THE OBSERVANCE OF THE DAYS OF NEUTRALITY Prime 14 of Northern Equinoctial is the Northern Lent (Day) of Neutrality or Northern Day of Ananicity; Prime 40 of Southern Equinoctial the Southern Lent (Day)of Neutrality or Southern Day of Ananicity. On these Equinoctial Days the Sun is above the equator and the lengths of day and night are equal. By associating the neutrality of the Sun when it is above the neutral latitude with the neutrality of the all-ananic, the observance of these special days is centered in the supreme being, altho strictly speaking, the all-ananic may not have a neutral latitudinal position with regard to Earth (if only because this neutrality is no universal neutrality). Since they demand our attention for supremeness, the two Sundays of Ananicity are days of rest. They should be characterized by joy nor sorrow, but by nanhappiness in the form of contemplation, meditation or reflection. Those who keep or remember a Day of Ananicity should not address themselves or pray to any principal being (let alone, a god) on such an Equinoctial Sunday. The metric calendar is to be arranged in such a way that the Sun passes the southern solstice before midnight on New Year`s Eve. Primeday 1 of Northern Yule can then be observed as the Northern Yule (Day) of Neutrality or Northern Day of Nanaicity. Similarly, the Sun must pass the northern solstice before midnight on Septerday 26 (or Octerday 26 in a leap year). Primeday 27 can then be observed as the Southern Yule (Day) of Neutrality or Southern Day of Nanaicity. (This day belongs to Equatorial Month, but marks the beginning of the quarter of Southern Yule.) Since it is only important that the Days of Nanaicity are observed after the Sun`s return to the equator has set in, both observances may take place a few days later than mentioned, so that they can adjoin or coincide with other special days (if any). However, they cannot take place earlier, that is, on a day before the Sun has started to return to the equator. While observance of the Lent Days of Neutrality is centered in neutrality proper, the observance of the Yule Days of Neutrality is centered in the neutral-directed force which causes (or has caused) the Sun to return to the neutral latitude. In accordance herewith, the Yule Days of Neutrality are feast-days. They should be celebrated, that is, characterized by happiness or joy. A Day of Nanaicity ought not only to be a feast-day but a day of nanaic action as well. The Days of Ananicity and of Nanaicity form part of one and the same symbolic system, and those who celebrate the Days of Nanaicity should remember the Days of Ananicity, and vice versa. For unneutralness without neutralness is no neutralism, and (in the actual, imperfect world) neutralness without unneutralness is no relevantism. As both nanhappiness and happiness concern all happiness-catenals, those who recognize the Days of Neutrality should eat no meat or fish, wear no leather or fur, and kill or wound no sentient beings on these days in particular. Inclusive respect for life is more than respect for human beings, more than respect for sentient beings or animal beings, it is respect for both animal and plant life. Therefore there is much to be said for the symbolic abstaining from eating any living being, plant or animal, especially on the Days of Ananicity. Abstaining from all eating, almost all drinking and all smoking or all nonmedical drugs is a form of neutralist forbearance which may symbolically express ultimate neutrality, and abstaining from eating any animal or plant food is a form of symbolic inclusivism which may reflect the ideal of inclusivity towards all living beings. Denominational fasting is also a way of pausing which is particularly appropriate for the Lent Sundays of Neutrality which are days of rest. Something one is always permitted to take, however, and against which there can be no objection, is pure water. This is supposed to contain neither animal nor plant food, and is a gustatory symbol of neutrality. Naturally, one should not fast when drinking water only infringes upon one`s health, or one should not fast longer than one`s body will allow, because fasting has to be regarded as a symbol which must not be the cause of a situational deterioration or of physical weakness. In that case it would eventually defy the purpose of nanaic action by which neutrality will have to be established and maintained in the end. At least four levels of strictness with respect to fasting on the Days of Neutrality can be distinguished: (strictest:) one fasts and refrains from smoking or taking other nonmedical drugs the whole day on all four Days of Neutrality one fasts and refrains from smoking or taking other nonmedical drugs on the Lent Days of Neutrality, and one abstains from eating meat or fish on the Yule Days of Neutrality one fasts and refrains from smoking or taking other nonmedical drugs before dawn or after sunset on the Lent Days of Neutrality, and one abstains from eating meat or fish on both the Lent and Yule Days of Neutrality (least strict:) one abstains from eating meat or fish on both the Lent and Yule Days of Neutrality Those more forbearing, or more willing to express their neutral-inclusive feelings in a symbolic manner, may want to fast from sundown on the day before until sunrise the day after a Day of Ananicity, or even longer. The equivalent on a Day of Nanaicity is a period of (at least) 36 hours which should begin and end at the same hour throughout the world (since the times of sundown and sunrise then vary for each latitude, or are absent altogether). The nonfundamental symbolism of the neutralist observance of days of rest and feast-days is centered around the all-ananic or neutrality proper and the all-nanaic or neutral-directedness. So it combines the neutral and the nanapolar-unneutral and reflects the dual character of the fundamental symbolism of the all-ananic and the all-nanaic. But it is not only in this respect that the neutralist observance of special days is inclusive. It is also inclusive in the ways in which this symbolism may be adhered to, which range from not at all to formal and strict. If one does recognize the Days of Neutrality, the observance of the Days of Ananicity has to be formal and strict, whereas that of the Days of Nanaicity may be much more informal and flexible. Examples of the strictness of Lent Day symbolism are: the Sundays of Ananicity are fixed and cannot be observed earlier or later for the same level of strictness with respect to eating and drinking the observance of a Day of Ananicity will usually be more demanding notwithstanding the special connection between Lent Day symbolism and supreme fundamental symbolism, no material object shall ever depict or represent the supreme being the participants or audience shall not applaud or cheer, nor show approval or disapproval in any similar way Examples of the flexibility of Yule Day symbolism are: the Days of Nanaicity may be observed later than normal with respect to eating and drinking the observance of a Day of Nanaicity is least demanding material objects may be used (in a sensible way) to represent a nanan or a particular type of nanaicity (but never to represent the all-nanaic as this would be exclusivistic) the participants or audience may show approval (and if appropriate disapproval) by clapping, stamping, cheering or in any other adequate way The Northern Yule of Neutrality coincides in the northern hemisphere with the time of the longest nights and the ancient midwinter festivals; the Southern Yule of Neutrality coincides with the time of the longest days and the ancient midsummer festivals. In this respect the celebration of these suprapersonal, special days is therefore the continuation or renaissance of an old tradition. The introduction of our weltanschauung has put these ancient festivals and humanity`s dependence on nature, on the land and on the seasons, in a new perspective. But the Northern Day of Nanaicity also falls in a period which is traditionally a time of private Xism parties and of official Xism celebrations in certain parts of the world. The DNI`s alternative does then mean that the turkey table and sucking pig conception of (Northern) Yule, and the hollow, ceremonial phraseology of peace and justice around this time of the year, will be replaced by substantive, Ananormative thought and action. Neutral-inclusivists shall not argue that they cannot like their food or enjoy themselves when not being allowed to eat meat or fish on a feast-day. Hence, even tho people may still dine and wine, and decorate a Yule tree, to celebrate the return of the light in the northern hemisphere, the advent of the new Northern Yule, and of the observance of the four Sundays in general, should open people`s eyes to the content of the new Norm. 5.3 SOCIAL FORMULAS OF OBSERVANCE 5.3.1 BELONGING TO AN ASSOCIATION AND NOT BELONGING TO ONE A historical, so-called 'universal' declaration of human rights has it that (literally) all human beings 'are endowed with reason and conscience', that the family, as founded by people who are married, is 'the natural and fundamental group unit of society', that everyone has the right to 'security in the event of widowhood', that motherhood (not parenthood) is 'entitled to special care and assistance' and that 'elementary education shall be compulsory'. In the same 'Declaration' it is proclaimed that education ought to 'promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among religious groups'. Obviously such a formal document is nothing else than a general assemblage of the sensible and nonsensical, inclusive and exclusivist ideas which happened to be in vogue among politicians and officials of a multitude of nationalities at the moment of conception. It has thus become a disorderly coalition program of activating and nonactivating, intrinsic and extrinsic, doxastic rights or --even more disorderly-- 'rights and freedoms' (with at least one type of duty: 'the duty to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible'). Yet, one of the more sensible, nonexclusivist articles of the above ramshackle Declaration correctly states that everyone has the right 'to freedom of peaceful assembly and association' and that 'no-one may be compelled to belong to an association'. In the systematic context of our Model this must be classified of course as a right of personhood. It is the extrinsic, nonactivating right to assemble peacefully, that is, in such a way that other people's rights to personhood are respected equally; and the right to associate, or to belong to an association. As the right is extrinsic and nonactivating, it is also the right not to assemble (even peacefully) and the right not to associate or to belong to an association. If the Declaration had been more consistent in its religionist tenor, it should have explicitly mentioned too that no-one ought to be compelled to belong to a religious organization in particular. Now, in the Ananorm the right to belong to an association or not to belong to one, is not only an extrinsic right (of personhood) but also an intrinsic right. The Ananorm does not know any independent or derivative principle of association or nonassociation. The intrinsic message of the Book of Fundamentals is that everyone should live as much as possible in conformity with truth and neutral-inclusivity. It does not and cannot say, however, to which particular state of being, or to which particular nanaic action, priority must be given. This has to be left to the capacities and interpretations of individual persons and groups and to the circumstances in which they find themselves. (The Model is in this respect as open-ended as a scientific paradigm.) Neutral-inclusivist symbolism is even more subject to these individual considerations, because it serves only indirectly the establishment and maintenance of neutral-inclusivity. The requirement is that it does so on the whole and at least in the long run, but if someone else can contribute to neutral-inclusivity to the same or to a higher degree without denominational symbolism and without joining a denominational or other organization 'e should certainly do so instead. Both fundamental action or abstention and participation in the DNI's symbolism can be a purely individual or a social expression of adherence to the values of the doctrine. Symbols or forms of symbolism such as those concerned with mourning, singing or meditation can be expressive of only one person's spiritual thoughts (or nonthought) and feelings. Even for the observance of the suprapersonal special days it is not necessary to be with other people, other families or other groups. When an ideological action or practise is the expression of the thoughts and feelings of a group, however, we may speak of "socialization", and when such a group is organized in some way, of "organization". If centered round a comprehensive (rather than a political) ideology, such socialization and organization are of a sociodenominational nature. Those who organize, or participate in, sociodenominational activities should, of course, not disturb or interrupt those who do not want to participate in these activities, unless social or legal rights equal to those of other comprehensive or political ideologies are being exercised on special occasions. (Such rights are then actually or hypothetically the result of a social contract between free persons.) Similarly, adherents of the Ananorm shall not have to accept any disturbance or interruption by a religous or other ideological practise of fellow citizens; even (or particularly) not if its meaning is purely symbolic, unless rights equal to those of themselves are being exercised on special occasions. No-one has any moral obligation as a citizen to participate in social activities organized by a state, party or other institution, if the belief in a god or demon, in a supernatural power, in any particular religion or ideology, or in any particular congeries of related ideologies, is given a special status in those activities. Furthermore, a lesson to be learned from religious and party-political history is that socialization and organization should be forced neither on nonadherents nor on adherents, whether by someone representing, or purporting to represent, the state, the party or any other such institution. 5.3.2 FORMULAS OF SYMBOLIZATION AND SOCIALIZATION It is clear that those who make of a denominational form of symbolism an organized event or a tradition should not forget that the acceptance of symbolic matters, and therefore also of such a denominational activity, has always to remain voluntary. In the DNI denominational, symbolic acting must not degenerate into ritualism for the sake of ritualism. The (sub)principle that there is neither an extrinsic nor an intrinsic duty to participate in any sort of nonfundamental denominational practise or symbolism, is expressed in a formula of voluntary symbolization (f.v.s.). Such a formula unequivocally tells that a particular symbolist act or occupation can very well be combined with adherence to fundamental neutralism-inclusivism, but that it is not imposed by the doctrine and that imposing it would be incompatible with the spirit of inclusivist anti- authoritarianism. At the same time such a formula should, if desirable, state explicitly that no-one shall be allowed to forbid or restrict such a symbolic expression, or treat it on unequal terms. A standard example of a formula of voluntary symbolization is: "There is no obligation to use symbols or symbolism, but those who want to shall be free to do so". Not all forms of symbolism can be combined with adherence to fundamental neutral-inclusivism: many (pre)historical or traditional symbol systems are not compatible with the DNI at all. Voluntary symbolism is therefore, doctrinally speaking, only the use of symbols which can be approved of from the standpoint of the DNI. Metadoctrinally speaking, people may accept any kind of symbol or symbolism, but doctrinally speaking, they must reject those forms of symbolism which represent and idealize the unneutral, exclusive, supernatural or something else of that ilk. Hence, for every f.v.s there is a supplementary formula of mandatory nonsymbolization (f.m.ns.). This nonsymbolization does then not refer to nonsymbolization in general but to nonsymbolization with respect to symbol systems violating the principles of the Ananorm. Moreover, the mandatory in a f.m.ns. is only intrinsic, whereas the voluntary in a f.v.s. is both extrinsic and intrinsic. A standard example of a formula of mandatory nonsymbolization is: "While using 'er freedom to symbolize and not to symbolize, no adherent shall create or perpetuate forms of symbolism incompatible with the Ananorm(ative principles)". In addition to the formulas of voluntary symbolization and mandatory nonsymbolization, the norm of nanhonore should be applied to every practising individual or group adopting a certain symbol system, and to every nonpractising individual or group not adopting such a symbol system. So, for every nonfundamental denominational action or form of symbolism there is a specific, intrinsic duty not to honor and not to dishonor. This is expressed by a formula of nanhonorable symbolization (f.nh.s.). Such a formula reads, for instance: "We shall not honor or dishonor those who symbolize, and we shall not dishonor or honor those who do not symbolize". Parts of this formula may be deleted, dependent on the circumstances. Variations in subject are also possible, like i instead of we, or the third person with no-one instead of the first person: "No-one shall honor (or dishonor) those who ...", and so on. While rites generally tend to lead to the degeneration of a denominational doctrine, such need not be the case if emphasis is being put in a ceremonial way on the spirit of neutral and inclusive thought as expressed in the formulas of symbolization (and nonsymbolization). A ritual statement can be an appropriate part of a symbolic practise or activity which is or has been made into an organized event or an institution. Yet, since it is precisely the function of such a statement to stress the formulas of symbolization and nonsymbolization, it may be abstained from, if reference to what these formulas have to say is made in another suitable way. Also reading the formulas aloud in a social setting is a voluntary form of symbolism in itself. Reading the formulas of symbolization in such a way that other people hear it, or get to hear it, combines the symbolic and the social in one activity. It is even possible to make the act of organization or socialization itself the subject of such formulas. This is illustratively shown in the following ceremonial text: "There is no obligation to organize or to socialize under the denomination of the Ananorm, but those who wish to shall be free to do so, and they shall not yield to religious or political exclusionism. No adherent shall use 'er freedom to socialize or not to socialize by participating in a form of socialization or by being a member of an organization violating the principles of the neutral-inclusive Norm. No-one shall honor or dishonor those who do organize or socialize under the same denomination, and no-one shall dishonor or honor those who do not organize or socialize under the same denomination." The first paragraph of this ritual statement is a variant of the formula of voluntary symbolization, that is, a formula of voluntary socialization. The second paragraph is then a variant of the f.m.ns., and the third one a variant of the f.nh.s.. The above statement is an example of how in different kinds of situation different variants of, and small additions to, the three standard formulas may be employed. Yet, more verbal ritualism than as expressed in these three formulas and their variants or additions should not be called for since this might eventually become detrimental to the conveyance of the substance of the Ananormative message. 5.3.3 AS TO THE SUPREME AND THE NANAIC "There is no obligation to recognize the supreme being, but those who want to shall be free to symbolically recognize the all-ananic. They shall not worship a god or other being that offends, or has offended, against the Norm. And they shall thus transcend both theism and atheism. No-one shall honor or dishonor those who recognize the all-ananic supreme being, and no-one shall dishonor or honor those who do not recognize the all- ananic supreme being." The tenor of these ritual words is that no-one who believes in the neutral- inclusive ideals may give 'imself up to a dogmatic belief in which it has become more important to formally recognize the all-ananic as supreme being, or to formally adhere to the doctrine, than to be neutral-inclusive, than to be ananic and/or nanaic. The all-ananic is a symbol, and the acceptance of this symbol is voluntary. It is the norms of neutrality and inclusivity themselves of which the fundamental significance must be realized by every adherent of the DNI. When 'e does realize the significance of these immutable norms, 'e may still have the extrinsic right to recognize the personal authority of theodemonical beings or other beings responsible for the spread of extremism, exclusivism or supernaturalism, but then 'e does not have the intrinsic right to do so. The first sentence of the first paragraph of the above ritual statement may be called "the formula of voluntary recognition" (f.v.r.), the second sentence "the formula of mandatary nonrecognition" (f.m.nr.). The second paragraph may be called "the formula of nanhonorable recognition" (f.nh.r.). Unlike that of the all-ananic, the existence of the all-nanaic is indisputable. Since the all-nanaic is also a normatively inferior being, the question of its recognition does not play the role it plays with respect to the supreme being. In view of the fact that the supreme being must not be addressed or prayed to, a special facet of the all-nanaic is rather that it can be addressed. Like the recognition of the all-ananic, the act of addressing oneself to the all-nanaic is voluntary too. But the intrinsic right to address oneself to the all-nanan, or to a particular nanan, is at once the intrinsic duty not to address oneself to an entity like the supreme being. And just as the act of recognizing or not recognizing the all-ananic is nanhonorable, so the act of addressing or not addressing one-self to the all-nanaic is nanhonorable as well. All three formulas are present in the following ritual statement about addressing oneself to the all-nanaic: "There is no obligation to address oneself to a principal being, but those who want to shall be free to symbolically address themselves to the all-nanaic or to a particular nanan. They shall never address themselves to the supreme being, in order to make a request or to express thanks, for the supreme being must not be prayed to. No-one shall honor or dishonor those who address themselves to the all-nanaic or to a particular nanan, and no-one shall dishonor or honor those who do not address themselves to the all-nanaic or to a particular nanan." 5.3.4 AS TO THE DAYS OF NEUTRALITY "Today is the Northern Yule of Neutrality, and we are gathered together to celebrate, but those who celebrate this Day of Nanaicity shall remember the Day of Ananicity. Today is the Northern Yule of Neutrality, a day no-one is obliged to observe, but adherents who do hold denominational days shall hold those of the Ananorm only, and they shall be free to do so. Today is the Northern Yule of Neutrality, and we are gathered together to observe this special day. No-one shall dishonor or honor those who have not come to observe this day with us, and no-one shall honor or dishonor those who have come to observe this day with us. Today is the Northern Yule of Neutrality, the day of the Sun's return to the neutral latitude. And it is to symbolically confirm the strength and creativity of the world's nanaic forces that we are gathered together here today." These might very well be the words read in the opening ceremony on the occasion of a sociodenominational assembly organized by and for those who observe the Northern Day of Nanaicity and the other Days of Neutrality. The company of adherents and sympathizers gathered on such a day may be called "a Sunday assembly" if the Day of Nanaicity is indeed observed on a Sunday, like a Day of Ananicity. The second paragraph of the ritual statement carries the message of the formulas of voluntary observance and of mandatary nonobservance. If the observance of the Days of Neutrality is not forbidden or hindered, the remark that this observance is free, namely that it must not be illegalized or subjected to unequal treatment (even if free), does not have to be made. The third paragraph contains the formula of nanhonorable observance. For those who celebrate on a Day of Nanaicity, or who rest on a Day of Ananicity, it is especially important that they do not honor those who join them or dishonor those who do not join them. On the other hand, outsiders (adherents or nonadherents of the doctrine alike) who do not participate in the observance should not dishonor in any way those who hold a Day of Neutrality, nor honor in any way those who do not. In societies which are denominationally inclusive and where the observance of the Days of Neutrality is not interfered with, and is treated on an equal footing, lines such as in this paragraph can be deleted. The first and last paragraphs of the above formal utterance are particularly applicable to the observance of a Day of Nanaicity or of a Day of Neutrality in general. They are not part of the ritual statement of observance proper. 5.3.4.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEUTRALIST CHANT ( Let the name of the supreme not be invokèd*, but let the name of the supreme be included: NANANAN**. NANANA.NA..NA...NA....NAN*** )**** Let the name of the all-neutral not be invokèd*, but let the name of the all-neutral be included: NANANAN**. NANANA.NA..NA...NA....NAN***. *: the grave indicates that the e may be pronounced as schwa or for poetical reasons; **: pronounced as with stress on the central syllable; may be deleted if the poem is sung; ***: this is the chant proper; ****: the first three lines and the first reading or singing of the chant may be deleted ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 BUILDING ON THE ANABASIS 6.1 THE PURPOSE OF JOINING There are two types of action or practise in the denominational field of the DNI: 1. fundamental action directly aimed at the establishment and maintenance of neutral-inclusivity in the world, in society and in individuals; this is nanaic, or at least anafactive, action besides abstention and within the rights-theoretical meta-frame; 2. symbolic confirmation which enhances the appeal and popular influence of the doctrine and which indirectly serves the establishment and maintenance of neutral-inclusivity in the world, in society and in individuals. (Confirmation is used here in the sense of an act or process of strengthening and of supporting what is held valuable.) Fundamental action consists of everything that contributes to the well-being of sentient beings, particularly of those human beings who die of starvation or malnutrition, those who suffer from disease or are handicapped and those who have no shelter; and particularly of those animal beings of which the natural environment is destroyed, and which are destroyed themselves, by the carelessness of people believing in nothing, or hardly anything, else than in the 'dominion of man'. It consists of everything that puts an end to discrimination and inequality among human beings, not only to those forms of discrimination and inequality which are recognized by many exclusivists as well (like racism and sexism to a convenient extent) but also to forms which are not less serious (like discrimination on the basis of denominational or ideological convictions and on the basis of factors such as language, class, age and sexual orientation). It consists of everything that makes it harder for people to believe in natural or supernatural falsehoods and in empty, natural or supernatural promises and threats. And it consists of everything else that is right or anafactive in terms of what is said in the Book of Fundamentals. This is not to say that it is solely action in some practical, material sense that would count. Also discussions about what should be, followed by what would be the best way to bring it about, can be worthwhile, so long as they are conducive to forms of action or nonaction which are nanaic, neutral or truth-preserving in themselves. Symbolic confirmation consists of the supportive use of symbols and of the voluntary confrontation with such symbols as described in this book, or as otherwise representative of Ananormative values. In the immediate, short- term sense symbolic confirmation probably only serves the well-being of symbolists themselves, probably only underlines the freedom from discrimination for symbolists themselves, and probably only urges symbolists themselves to distinguish tales or myths from true or veridical stories. But in a less immediate, longer-term sense repeated confirmation by means of symbols can be at least as effective as fundamental action or nonaction. This should first and foremost be the case if symbolists do together overtly show each other and the outside world what they stand for, that is, if they come into the open. When fundamentalists act in concert to combat exism, supernaturalism and authoritarianism, symbolists should join hands in a ring and form a circle in which there is a place for all, truly existing people and other primary beings in the universe. The sole thing that may, then, not be truly existing is the neutral being in the center of this circle. The purpose of joining other adherents or sympathizers of the DNI in sociodenominational activities are, if not the same as those of fundamental action and symbolic confirmation, derived from those of fundamental action and symbolic confirmation. And the ultimate purpose remains the ultimate purpose of the immutable norms in general. Yet, if we confine ourselves in this context to activities which are not nanaic or neutral in a strict sense, those who socialize or organize themselves under the denomination of the Ananorm may do so, for example: to listen to what others have to tell, and to participate in discussions with them; to make preparations for collective efforts to improve the conditions of human and other sentient beings; to observe the Days of Neutrality; to express joy or contentment and sorrow or indignation together; and to communicate neutral-inclusive ideas and feelings thru literature, drama, music, photography, sculpture, design or by any other artistic means. 6.2 THE NEUTRAL-INCLUSIVE MOVEMENT 6.2.1 ORGANIZATIONS AND MEMBERS Where people have a common long-term or eternal goal and want to achieve something worthwhile, there always arises the need to set up a more stable, formal structure, that is, to associate themselves in an organization. If such an organization has the advancement of the doctrine of neutral- inclusivity and of neutral-inclusivity itself as its goal, then the initiation and/or coordination of fundamental, neutral-inclusivist action and of symbolic, neutral-inclusivist confirmation will somehow constitute its objectives. Everyone who agrees with, or is interested in, these objectives should be able to join an organization of people with the same objectives. Let us call such an organization "a DNI association (of sympathizers)". The sole requirement such a DNI association will have to fulfil is that its existence is not on the whole detrimental to the anabasis, the advance of the neutral-inclusive movement or of neutral- inclusivity. Similarly, the sole requirement an individual person will have to fulfil in order to become a member is that 'er membership is not on the whole detrimental to the anabasis. (Unlike many religious temple societies, veridicalists shall not claim that people are members of their organization solely because they have been forcefully circumcised as a little boy or girl or dipped in or sprinkled with water as an infant or child.) Now, when someone's applied-for membership of a DNI association is on the whole not detrimental to the aggregate ideal of the DNI, it does not mean that such a person could not be, say, a member of an organization with an incompatible ideology at the same time. It does not follow from the fact that our doctrine is coherent (or minimally incoherent), that the beliefs of all followers of our doctrine will be coherent too (or minimally incoherent). Some may be so undisciplined as to adhere to incompatible doctrines or parts of doctrines. If someone who claims that 'e sympathizes with neutral-inclusivism and veridicalism, sympathizes with extremist, exclusivist or supernaturalist ideas as well, this will certainly in some respect harm the cause of the DNI, but it is then not necessarily the case that 'er membership will have more disadvantages than advantages from the perspective of this cause. However, it seems that in the short term truth would be the value most seriously violated in such a situation. This would probably also be the case if someone joined a DNI association for purely opportunist reasons. The phenomenon is well-known throughout history: human beings with little regard for principles or consequences join a club which is big, powerful, rich or fashionable and stay with it so long as it remains big, powerful, rich or fashionable. But as soon as another group which used to be small, powerless, poor or unfashionable starts to flourish they do not refrain from changing color and allegiance overnight. A DNI association will have to accept such opportunists nevertheless in the event that their membership serves the neutral-inclusive cause on the whole. In the long run inconsistent beliefs and opportunism are pernicious to personhood, truth, inclusivity and/or neutrality. That is why an organization that intends to promote all four ultimate ideals of the Ananorm must require more from its members than that they sympathize, or say that they sympathize, with these ideals. Such members should then also be required to be genuine and faithful adherents. This is not something that can be asserted about people who at the same time somehow support, sympathize or work with an organization or group with an ideology offending against the Ananorm. It is even not something that can be asserted about people who did recently somehow support, sympathize or work with such an organization or group. (Recently, for example, in the relative sense that their conversion took less time than the number of years they belonged to exclusivist or suchlike groups, or in the absolute sense that their conversion took less than 2 years or so.) This is not to say, of course, that members of a DNI association would not be genuine and faithful adherents. On the contrary: all of them may be conscientious, nonopportunist members but --and this is what is meant here-- not because of the conditions of membership. A denominational organization which requires from neutral-inclusivists that they do not, and did not recently, adhere to or perpetuate the influence of incompatible doctrines (or metadoctrines) and that they do not, and did not recently, sympathize or work with groups promoting an incompatible cause, may be called "an anastomosis (of adherents)". An anastomosis --or stomosis for short-- is, as it were, an organizational network of sincere adherents of the DNI. It can be part of a DNI association, but a DNI association cannot be part of an anastomosis. Not only are the conditions of membership of an anastomosis more specific (with an incompatibility and an anti- opportunism clause), the conditions of founding an anastomosis should be more specific too. Because of the special role of truthfulness, sincerity and faithfulness with respect to the doctrine in the anastomotic perspective, an anastomosis should in the first instance unite adherents who speak the same language, for the interpretation of truth and consistence in belief is in practise language-dependent. Thus each anastomosis is to be an anastomosis of the speakers of a particular language in which this Model (or at least the Book of Fundamentals) has been made public. Whereas there may be several DNI associations for one speech community, or one DNI association for several speech communities, there should be not more than one anastomosis for each speech community, and vice versa. If, and when, there exist several anastomoses that join in a federation, they do therefore not lose their moral sovranty (for example, in that they would not have the right to separate). For it is not the interlinguistic federation but the assemblies of the speakers of the same language that ultimately retain the independent power to decide. (This argument is only valid if, and so long as, communities must be regarded as different language communities for nonanastomotic, nondenominational reasons. ) While an anastomosis or a federation of anastomoses may have an organizational hierarchy when this is necessary or desirable for their functioning, such a hierarchy must not be based on, or reflect, individual or other forms of personative exclusivism. Instead of being dictatorial, monarchical, oligarchic, patriarchal, aristocratic, plutocratic or bureaucratic, an anastomosis or federation of anastomoses is to be a truly democratic organization. Hence, it should under normal circumstances not have a permanent president or 'secretary' as nominal or de facto head of the organization; such will merely contribute to personative exclusivism. Instead of a permanent presidency (or something of that ilk), there should either be no presidency at all or the members of the executive council (or of a special 'central council' of at least three members) should take turns at performing duties which are traditionally those of a president. Only under exceptional circumstances should an anastomosis or federation of anastomoses be (temporarily) led by one person with great official, executive and/or ceremonial power; that is, great in comparison with that of other members. The final, normative 'authority' in anastomotic matters rests with the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity, since it is on the basis of this Model that each anastomosis will be, or has been, founded, while membership of an anastomosis is voluntary. Altho the Model is not a sacred body of writings purportedly brought forth by one or more supernaturally infallible persons or beings, no organization can decide either by a tie or by a majority or minority of votes that the Model would be incorrect or partially incorrect. It is only if, and when, all members of an anastomosis (or those they have freely given a mandate to) agree, and continue to agree, that a smaller part of the Model in their language is not compatible with the larger part of it, that they (or their democratic representatives) may decide to deviate from what is stated in the part of the Model in question. They will then recognize its overall 'authority' nonetheless. This abstract 'authority' is, of course, a nonpersonal one not to be confused with the personal authority of those who believe in the primacy of the authoritative. In an even more abstract or symbolic strain, the final 'authority' in intrinsic anastomotic matters must be conceived of as resting with the doctrine of neutral- inclusivity: 'the doctrine that is our master'. Since every speech community has the right to a sovran denominational organization, also the speakers of This Language may have their own anastomosis. If they do indeed found such an organization, its name shall be the Anastomosis of (the Speakers/Adherents of) This Language. And it shall be one among the anastomoses of the speakers of all other languages. 6.2.2 THE PROMISE OF ADHERENCE There are exactly three cardinal promises which an adherent of the DNI may ever make: 1. to tell only what is (or was/is/will be) true (or what 'e will make true); 2. to distinguish only what is (or was/is/will be) relevant; and 3. to aim only at what is (or was/is/will be) (ultimately) neutral. Hence, there are exactly three ultimate things 'e may ever swear to: (1) the truth, (2) inclusivity (or relevance) and (3) ananicity (or neutrality). As 'e shall eschew what is abusive, the neutral-inclusivist shall not swear or curse by vulgarizing expressions of false or supernatural belief or by being impertinent. And as 'e shall eschew honor-exism and personative exclusivism 'e shall not swear allegiance to a person or personified being representing an exclusivist institution. In a relationship between people who know each other an oath of loyalty which is nothing else than a solemn promise need not be exclusivistic, but even when it is not, such an oath will always be subject to the principles of the Norm; not only to that of truth but to the other three as well. Some might consider concepts like oath, swearing and solemn supernaturalistic or exclusivistic in themselves. Especially the term oath which is, among others, defined as solemn calling upon a god to witness the truth of what one says may be questionable (albeit, perhaps, not as questionable as vow). Should they be right, we must never 'swear any oath' and conscientiously decline to take one when asked to do so. Yet, such does not mean that we could not declare something by affirmation or make a 'solemn' promise; and if solemn is not acceptable, that we could not make an 'earnest' or 'serious' promise, this in itself being merely a question of terminology. However, in languages or countries where theists, for instance, prefer to use the terms oath and swearing, whereas nontheists traditionally already prefer to speak of "affirming" and "promising", it may be better that we stick to these 'promises' and leave the swearing to the other side. Those who swear allegiance to a person, particularly a representative of a monarchical or other exclusivist system, put at least symbolically blind trust in being a liege of temporal or pseudo-eternal lordship. When they swear, they implicitly swear by serfdom and the primacy of the authoritative. It goes without saying that the DNI cannot approve of the perpetuation of these practises and of this symbolism (or rather antisymbolism if forced upon citizens or people who want to obtain citizenship). Yet, the DNI does allow declarations or promises, and serious or 'solemn' declarations or promises at that. The most solemn promise an adherent of the DNI will be able to make, then, is the promise of adherence itself. Unlike allegiance, adherence is not a question of being a liege or serf, but a question of adhering to one's principles. And unlike allegiance, adherence is not a theocentrist or other authoritarian phenomenon, but the expression of a normist commitment. That is why a solemn promise of adherence can have a profound significance in a normist context, certainly in the context of an anastomosis of adherents. If, and when, there are no objections against the use of the word oath, the anastomotic promise may be called "the Oath of Adherence". In any event it may also simply be called "the Promise of Adherence". An Oath or Promise of Adherence is to consist of the three cardinal promises which an adherent of the DNI is allowed to make, but it can be formulated in a restrictive and in a prescriptive way. Variants of the restrictive version are: I / We, [ name(s) ], (hereby) (solemnly/earnestly) promise / affirm that i/we will never (purposely) tell what is untrue (or what i/we will not make true), will never (purposely) distinguish what is irrelevant, and will never (purposely) advance what is (ultimately) unneutral and I / We, [ name(s) ], swear that .... Variants of the prescriptive version are: I / We, [ name(s) ], (hereby) (solemnly/earnestly) promise / swear to (purposely) tell only what is true (or what i/we will make true), to (purposely) distinguish only what is relevant, and to (purposely) aim only at what is (ultimately) neutral. There is no obligation to raise one's right or to raise one's left hand when taking the Oath or Promise of Adherence. The most suitable corporal sign, so far as hands are concerned, is to clasp them together as shown in figure S.4.1.2.1. Since taking the Oath is a form of symbolism, there is not even an obligation for members of an anastomosis to make this solemn promise, whether to remain a member or to become one. Conversely, it is only anastomotic members or candidates who should be allowed to formally make the Promise in the presence of two or more of their fellow adherents, because the earnestness of it does only combine with the membership restrictions of an anastomosis. The symbolism of the Promise ought not to be contaminated by people who are ignorant of its meaning, for instance, or who also associate with the actions and symbolic practises of groups defying the Norm or violating its principles. For reasons of truthfulness and interpretation a Promise of Adherence must be made in the language of the anastomosis concerned, and can solely be made by the promisor if 'e is sufficiently able to understand, and communicate in, that language. Before the Promise is made a person not making the Promise 'imself may start with the following words (which take into account that some people who are confined to bed or to a wheelchair, for instance, are unable to stand and walk, and that mute people are unable to speak): "(Dear) (sibling(s)) ([name(s)]), if you wish to make the Promise / take the Oath, please (step/move forward and) stand/sit/lie still. Before proceeding you must realize that by making the Promise / taking the Oath you call upon your fellow adherents of the Ananorm to witness that you sincerely intend to refrain from what the Norm proscribes, or to do what the Norm prescribes. This solemn/earnest promise will symbolically put you under a special obligation to every member of our (speech) community. It is thru us/me that you ask all siblings of the DNI to attest to the truth, relevance and neutrality of what you are going to say / write down. In this position we/i will now give you the opportunity to make the Promise / take the Oath of Adherence (in the Language of this Anastomosis)." After this introduction the Promise proper can be made individually or collectively. To conclude, the Wheel of the Ananorm or any other adequate poem may be sung by those present at the ceremony. (The figure of speech used in the Wheel is an ancient one. The word wheel derives from kyklos meaning circle or wheel, which in turn derives from c(h)akra also meaning wheel. In some systems of thought levels of consciousness were, or still are, depicted as wheels or 'chakras'. The effect is the more striking because telos in teleology, which means end or purpose, derives from cakra too. That is why it is also of great symbolic significance to call the DNI "a teleological doctrine". By doing so we further unify the past, present and future; and this without trying to roll back the wheel of history.) 6.2.2.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE WHEEL OF THE ANANORM The wheel of the new Norm has been set in motion. There is no way anymore to stem the anabasis. It has already been set in motion -- the wheel of the Ananorm, the wheel of the Ananorm. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.3 NEW CENTERS 6.3.1 OF DENOMINATIONAL ENGAGEMENT Let us call a sociodenominational gathering "an assembly", whether fundamentalistic, that is, aimed at discussion, deliberation, social action and entertainment or contemplation, or symbolistic, that is, aimed at confirmation or observance of a representative type. We shall then call a place, building or section thereof in which fundamental and/or symbolic, sociodenominational activities are or can be held "an assembly center (of the DNI)". As pointed out before, the term center demands our special attention, because it associates (in this case) neutral-inclusivist places of assembly with the centrality of the neutral predicate (the central secondary thing of the catena) and with that of the all-neutral supreme being (the central primary thing of the universe). An assembly center of the DNI should not only be a hub of activity but also a place of meditation and denominational abstention or nonaction. Sociodenominational gatherings and activities which are partially or 'completely' symbolistic should be clearly identifiable as such beforehand. It must be possible to assemble, or to attend an assembly, on purely fundamentalist grounds, free from any social pressure to adopt the nonlinguistic symbolism of the Ananorm, and as much as possible also its verbal symbolism. The voluntary character of this supererogatory symbolism should always be guaranteed, altho this will never release a fundamentalist or anyone else from the intrinsic duty to abstain from any form of incompatible symbolism. Conversely, also symbolists should have the freedom to organize and participate in activities of a nonfundamental purport as described in this book or as in agreement with what is stated in this book. An assembly of adherents and/or sympathizers in which supererogatory symbols do not act a part, is a 'fundamental assembly'. If the place where it is or will be held is specially used for fundamental assemblies (and not for other ones), it may be called "a Hall of Fundamentals". (Names like Room or Chamber may be preferred for etymological or other reasons.) An assembly which is partially or 'completely' symbolistic is a 'symbolic assembly'. The pendant to a Hall of Fundamentals is a Hall of Symbols. An assembly center which has a Hall of Symbols must also have a Hall of Fundamentals, for the symbol structure of the DNI has been built, and can solely be maintained and extended on an Ananormative basis. If an assembly center has only a Hall of Fundamentals, it may be called "a meeting center"; if both a Hall of Fundamentals and a Hall of Symbols, "an (ana)kentron". It may also be that fundamental and symbolic assemblies use the same buildings or parts of a kentron. Such a kentron has then no separate Hall of Fundamentals and Hall of Symbols. Yet, the difference with a meeting center will still be that symbols may be shown and activities organized in such a center to which fundamentalists do not attach special value. Rather than having one Hall of Symbols it would probably be more appropriate to have a separate Hall of Ananicity and a separate Hall of Nanaicity. A 'Hall of Ananicity' is to be thought of as a kentronic structure or part of such a structure dedicated to ananic, supreme being and the symbols of perfective neutralism, whereas a 'Hall of Nanaicity' is or would be --as already mentioned in 4.2.3-- dedicated to nanaic action and the symbols of corrective neutralism. Should there be only one Hall of Symbols nevertheless, and should this be a separate structure within a kentronic complex, it can be nanacatenary in design, like a Hall of Nanaicity or a whole kentron. It is only a Hall of Ananicity for which such a design (if wanted) would not be suitable. From a social and practical point of view every anastomosis ought to have at least one kentronic center, which may belong to a DNI association of which the anastomosis forms part, or which it may share with a DNI association or with an anastomosis of another speech community. In such an assembly center the kinds of activities will take place which have been listed in the first divison of this chapter as reasons to join other adherents or sympathizers of the DNI. Meeting centers, however, would not be used for a ceremony such as the Oath of Adherence or for something like the observance of a Day of Neutrality. If the speakers-adherents of one language live in areas which are geographically and, unfortunately, perhaps also politically, separated from each other, then each area should have at least one anakentron, provided that the need or desire for such a kentron actually exists. But the different anastomotic centers shall all belong to the same organization of adherents, for geographical barriers and historical or contemporary politics did not, and will not, divide inclusivists who continue to speak the same tongue. We can acquiesce in given, natural divisions, but 'catabatic' restrictions must not be allowed to obstruct the anabatic movements of our speech communities. 6.3.2 OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION 6.3.2.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NARROW IS THE NEUTRAL MIDDLE PATH "Wide is the gate, and broad the way to destruction": this is what an ancient of days once said. So is the gate of gates of those who exclude: wide, wider and widest. And so is the way of ways of the exclusive: broad, broader and broadest. Whereas the wide gate is easy to go thru, and the broad way easy to follow, the unique path of perfect neutralness is extremely hard to tread. For the gate of the Norm is strait and precise; neither to the left nor to the right does it extend. For the gate of the Norm is straight and upright; neither to abnegation nor to aggrandizement does it yield. The way to one-pointed concentration always was and will remain infinitely narrow. Also this the ancients have said before: "Like the sharp edge of a razor is the Path" -- the Middle Path of perfect harmony and unity, that is. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- When the members of a community share a denominational 'disciplinary matrix', they have a conceptual apparatus in common with its own terminology, analogies and metaphors; they use then their own symbolic expressions; and, most importantly, they adhere then to their own system of norms and values. Whether their 'disciplinary matrix' has (already) become an undisputed paradigm or not, the members of such a community will feel the need to organize and expand their knowledge and to relate what they know or believe to others, both members and nonmembers. A neutral-inclusivist community will need to organize and expand its knowledge in the Ananormative field; not for the sake of knowledge, for knowledge is not an ultimate or perfective value in itself, but in order to be able to cope better with practical and theoretical problems having to do with interpretation and implementation, and with socialization and organization, on the basis of the Ananorm. Where this knowledge is not yet available it requires research, and where it is available it requires the education of others and/or of ourselves (as the case may be). Research in the field of denominationalism has historically and traditionally been the prerogative of theologs (and of specialists in demonology), altho their domain is merely that of theocentrist ideologies and forms of socialization. Even so-called 'public' universities start, or used to start, their curriculum with theology, or have made or made that course part of it. (We shall not speak here of so-called 'public' or 'interdenominational', educational institutions that start, or used to start, their lessons with theocentrist prayer.) Since our own ideology and organizations are, or will be, normistic, any research in the field of normistic denominationalism will be, or become, the task of 'normologs' (or whatever other name more adequate than theolog(ue) or theologian one wants to give these students or specialists). This will mean one of three things for (quasi-)public and non- or interdenominational private universities or schools: 1. theology and normology are ideological courses and do not properly belong to the curriculum; to the extent that they enhance scientific knowledge, they are part of subjects such as mythology, sociology and history; to the extent that they are philosophically illuminating or interesting, they are part of philosophy; and to the extent that they are of artistic significance, they are part of subjects such as literature and architecture; 2. theology and normology are mixtures of science, philosophy, arts and ideology; where, when and so long as they both exist, they shall (if taught at all) both be taught and the one shall not be given priority over the other, neither in a fundamental nor in a symbolic fashion; 3. the study of denominationalism, and perhaps of ideology in general, shall be open to anyone, shall not give priority to any ideology or ideological axiom in particular, and shall not in any exclusive way promote or perpetuate the symbolism of any ideology or type of ideology (assuming that such an approach is feasible at all). From the point of view of the theory of denominational paradigms as expounded in division 6.3 of the Book of Instruments, a combined study of denominationalism by theologs and normologs together would be unthinkable. A theolog is in the words of such a theory an exponent of the 'old normal- denominational tradition'. A neutral-inclusivist normolog, on the other hand, is a disciplinary thinker who accepts a new model as 'er paradigm, and who will be but too eager to articulate it. Like a scientist 'e will be keenly interested in resolving the new paradigm's residual ambiguities and in finding solutions to problems the model does not deal with or has only drawn attention to as yet. A normolog must then be able to take the basics of 'er system of disciplinary thought for granted. If 'e had to constantly defend the first principles and fundamental concepts of the Norm against theologs, traditional moral philosophers or others, 'e would never come to furthering normology or Ananormative denominationalism itself. Instead, a normolog of the DNI will feel committed to 'open up new territory, display order (in the correct sense), and test long-accepted belief'. Theologs and others can only share 'er excitement of exploring this new denominational territory if they forswear, or earnestly promise to give up, their religion and supernaturalism in general. (Which includes, of course, the perpetuation of religious symbolism, the suggestion of the primacy of the divinely authoritative and the presumption that all denominationalism would have to be theodemonistic or supernaturalistic.) So-called 'public' and 'nonreligious' or 'nonsectarian' private educational institutions have not only taught theology as a subject (whether or not in combination with demonology), they have often also looked after the education of clergymen (seldom or never that of clergypeople). Students of this nonscientific branch of education were, or still are, later to become the officials and priests of the temple organizations of the different religious brands. What applies to theologs very much applies to the education of these men (of whatever religous name) as well. It is not that a neutral-inclusive society or community will ever be in need of magic mediators between Mono and man, and it is not that such a society or community will ever be in need of a sacerdotal class of pneumatologists or pastoral workers tending flocks of human sheep, and yet also the Model will have to be read by and may have to be explained to people who are less knowledgeable or intelligent, but who are, perhaps, the more interested. When people have personal problems or worry about what is happening in the world, or when they would like to be given advice in matters of personal or suprapersonal concern, an Ananormative organization, too, could benefit from employing people with special qualifications; that is, not those of specialists in mediating between Mono and man (or sheep), but in mediating between the Norm and laypeople of whatever gender, age and level of education or intelligence. These practitioners or counselors who are not as such disciplinary thinkers themselves may be called "normicians". (Normician stands to norm as beautician stands to beaut(y), dietician to diet and technician to techn(ics).) Whereas a normolog is in a sense the counterpart of a theolog, a normician is not to be thought of as the counterpart of a priest, or merely partially so. A normician is, for example, not someone who has to be officially invested with authority, or who has to be a member of an Ananormative organization. What counts is that 'e knows how to effectively help people on the basis of the principles of the DNI, and how to effectively communicate veridicalist and neutral-inclusivist views in a way which is appropriate to the receivers of the message -- a message which is not divine but normative. It is also normicians or people with similar capacities who will have to popularize the DNI, and to organize sociodenominational actions and activities. In the event that old universities or schools have shed or will shed their religionist, sexualist and other exclusivist or supernaturalist leaves before the end of the term, there is a fair chance that new leaves and flowers will begin to grow in the next term, or have already developed and opened in the meantime. If so, then those old schools do, as it were, become new centers of research and education themselves. In that case they could also take care of the education of normologs and --if needed or desired-- of normicians, whether or not in addition to that of theologs and priests. However, should the old schools cling to traditions offending against the Ananorm, and should new interideological public or private schools prove to be ineffective or an illusion, the adherents of the DNI will have every reason to establish their own institutes. Whether or not special DNI centers of research and education are necessary, and do or will exist, we must never forget that the concentration which is needed to learn and teach the principles of a normistic doctrine is, properly speaking, not the concentration of classrooms, offices and computers, let alone of bachelor cells in a monosexual monastery or convent. Every research institute, every school, every assembly center is a luxury, because the new Dharma can be taught and received in the shade of a tent or under a tree. It was done about two-and-a-halfthousand years before and human nature has not or hardly changed since. 6.4 CEASELESSLY 6.4.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO ANANDA a poem of millenniums Ananda, your name is the name of all persons who have chosen to be open to the Norm: male and female, of no or either gender, young and old or of any other age, from the East and from the West, from the North and from the South, or from whatever part of the world. You have learned in your own language now, that it is not priesthood or prayer, nor faith or grace which bring redemption, but that it is knowledge by which things come true. You have rejected the mistaken authority of sacred scriptures, the meaningless rituals, and the sacrifices to deity, thus boldly breaking with reactionary religion. You have turned away from the belief in the supreme power of a god or gods purportedly showing what should. Or, if not totally repudiating this god or these gods you have reduced them to the nonimportance* of what merely is what it is. You have experienced that knowledge lies within the reach of the individual, that no god bestows insight, but that it is won by yourself, by the power of your own will and perseverance. You have removed the barriers of caste or class, of nationality, and of everything fortuitous or effete; all attachments to unjust, partial institutions. You care for all sentient beings, as the deliverance from suffering is meant for all of them. ( Where redemption lies in realization it is understanding whichmakes real, not belief or the mere absence of sins believed in. Stay away from all metaphysical speculation, which does not advance you along the road to reformation. Bar all obscure and unrestrained theorizing, which leads to aimless wandering and quarreling, and which does not contribute to deliverance. It makes you cling to the false or irrelevant, wherefrom you must free yourself if you are to find the way to excellence. Cross the water to the land where all conflict comes to an end in a vehicle which is pure and true to the origin. And do not make a god of a seer, a deity over all other gods, an idol over all humans. When the silence of the originator has become eternal, the doctrine** remains as the** source** that will never cease to inform and to inspire. The chakra of the new Dharma was set in motion not only to direct those who feel moved by it but equally to direct those who do not feel moved by it. For all of them there is the same means of liberation: to surmount naivety and ignorance by knowledge. It is the state of vision wherein the whole is seen, free from prejudicial distinctions, which transforms and liberates. It is contemplation which needs no ecstasy, and which does not depend on perceptions or feelings induced by alcohol or other drugs. It is the widening of the stream of experience which is brought about by insight, exceeding all traditional beliefs in comprehension. The knowledge that you should be sincere, both in your deepest thoughts and feelings, and in the actions and words of everyday life; that nothing is to lie dormant in the unconscious, where it may cause disruption and confusion; that you ought to be aware of all you do, and not wreak vengeance upon your opponents in mere retaliation or out of retribution. )*** The ultimate goal transcends all opposition. It is the state of neither-nor, the infinite oneness, wherein is neither earth exclusively, nor water nor fire nor air, wherein is neither defeat nor victory, neither falling nor arising, wherein is no short or long duration; the end of both restlessness and boredom, where there is no evil or bad situation. It is the complete silence of the final anagnorisis. This is attained by the enlightenment of the Middle Path, the way from pain and pleasure for pleasure's sake, from hate and love for love's sake, to freedom from all suffering and struggling, to the realization of what is eternal or nontemporal. And this is attained by the beneficence of the Middle Path, the dao of a peaceful doctrine that knows no recurring climaxes of violence for thousands of years, no persecution of heretics or ideological trials, no oppression of unbelievers or holy wars, no penal practises like sacred stonings. Ananda, the penalty of our failure is the everlastingness of violence, war, oppression, intolerance and negligence, and the penalty of our failure is the everlastingness of poverty, fear, obsession, inhibition and ignorance, whereas the reward of our success will be nothing but the nonexistence thereof. Every single achievement gives satisfaction, but amid all that is left to do, and amid all that is left to redo. If all accomplishment is transient, my sibling, then, indeed, we will have to strive ceaselessly, ceaselessly ... [ *: not necessarily unimportance; **: or the ism remains as 'izumi', the source, if finishing with Izumi played on the koto, or any other adequate composition with the same theme; ***: the second and third stanzas may be deleted] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF THE BOOK OF SYMBOLS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unlike human nature, human culture has often changed. And so long as humankind is confronted with serious factual-modal and normative anomalies in denominational and political ideology, human culture will have to change again, either voluntarily and with direction or as a result of an intercontinental holocaust. If humankind chooses to be completely consumed in fire by its own acts, a new species may eventually rise in youthful freshness from its ashes again --as an ancient legend has it-- but not with any antiquated books in its hands. If humankind chooses to follow the right way, it may save the old books from the fire, but it will have to break then with every tradition of taking fiction for fact and venom for value --and with the legend. In either case people will be served by a new model to interpret the past and the present, and to build on for the future. [Copyright ©MVVM, 41-69 a(fter)S(econd)W(orld)W(ar) M. Vincent van Mechelen] [TRINPsite, trinp.org; owner Stichting DNI Foundation, reception2@trinp.org]