E-MAIL QUESTIONS by J. E. on 59.41.6:
I found your Web site during an Internet search for a
definition of the concept of "Supreme Being" and read your article:
with great interest.
I wish to discuss your article with a friend of mine who
has a challenge with the concept of a "supreme being" but first want to
know where I obtained the information from. Sure, I found it on the TRINP
Web site ... but who or what is TRINP?
One could find definitions of all manner of things and
concepts on the Internet, and discuss them, but it is helpful to know the
origins of those definitions and keep those origins in mind when critically
assessing such material. Literally identical definitions of some idea, or
concept, or thing, might be interpreted in differing lights depending on
whether the publishers of such definitions were, for example: the Catholic
Church, a political leader, a philosopher, a witch's coven member or
practicing Satanist, a theoretical physicist or scientist of some other
type, a group's conclusion or individual's idea ... and so on.
I would be much obliged if you could enlighten me with
regard to: What TRINP is - and how, where, and why did it originate?
ANSWER on 59.41.7:
The Role of Normative
, the section you read, is part of
the Book of Instruments
, a mainly philosophical
book which, in turn, is part of
the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity
, a major
The doctrine introduced and defended in the Model is not theistic or
atheistic in any conventional sense: it is, first and foremost, normistic,
that is, based on the primacy of norms and values (rather than on that of
gods and/or demons in the singular or plural). The values considered
fundamental in the Model are
. The Model was first published on
paper 41 years after the Second World War. Its publication on the Internet
started 9 years later and continues until the present day.
The acronym TRINP for TRuth, Relevance, Inclusiveness, Neutrality and
Personhood does not occur in the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity, but was used
for the first time on InSite. InSite
original name of the website which received its present name TRINPsite
7 years ago. You should visit the main
and the main
index page at
and the pages
linked to from there for more of this kind of information.
From a normistic point of view a person cannot justifiably be interested in
(a) supreme being/being supreme without being interested in norms and
values above all. It is only theocentrists (theists and atheists alike) who
fight about such a matter as the (non)existence of God/gods or (a) supreme
being, while forgetting what it is that makes something better or worse in
the first place, regardless of the (non)existence of any god, demon or
supreme being. Therefore i strongly advise you to study the question of
denominational primacy in the Model. The fourth division of the sixth
chapter of the Book of Fundamentals
deals with this issue in particular.
As far as the concept of supreme being itself is concerned, it might also
be worthwhile for you to read (parts of) the third chapter of the Book of
Symbols, especially the section on 'the truth and relevancy of [the supreme
Note that truth
here means truth and/or falsehood
and that relevancy
here means relevance and/or irrelevance
I hope i have answered your questions of how and where TRINP originated.
The answer to your question of why it originated cannot be equally simple
and concrete, i fear. May i venture to reply that the explicit recognition
of the TRINP values was bound to come about in a world replete with
supernaturalism, exclusivism and extremism?
FORM COMMENT by A. on 59.27.6:
Unfortunately I have only had time for a short examination of this rather
cumbersome web site and equally unfortunately my impression is that apart
from the awkward communication style of parts of it, you are some 1000
years ahead of your time.
NO ANSWER is needed, not in a thousand years, as, fortunately, this
comment does not contain a question.
E-MAIL QUESTIONS by G. on 59.25.1:
I'm doing a bit of research into the term 'inclusivity' as used by a church
in California. What is the earliest use of the term that you know of? Is
there any particular person or institution who coined the term?
ANSWER on 59.25.3:
You will have noticed that the term inclusivity
does not (yet) occur in traditional
paper dictionaries, whereas the term exclusivity
has been recognized by everyone as a
(near-)synonym of exclusiveness
. It is no
wonder, then, that purely on the basis of the analogy inclusivity
had to and did come into existence
The earliest use of the term inclusivity
know of is in the manuscripts and typescripts which preceded the Model of
Neutral-Inclusivity by Vinsent Nandi (see
) --if i am
not mistaken in those parts which were written 25 to 30 years after the
Second World War. The Model was published 41 years aSWW, so you may prefer
that year as the 'official' one.
There was a special reason for introducing the concept of inclusivity
in the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity. It
is a much wider notion than inclusive thought
for instance, covering not only the cognitive but
also the affective and conative aspects of people's attitudes; not only
thought but also action. With the stress put on the unity of thinking,
feeling and acting a clear distinction between the inclusive and the
exclusive attitude emerged; between exclusion and exclusivity on the one
hand and inclusion and inclusivity on the other. Inclusivity then becomes
the complete opposite of exclusivist acts, practices and teachings,
inclusive of those created, perpetuated and/or promoted by the Bible and
Should you be interested in the substance too, you are especially advised
to read the first two chapters of the second Model book,
the Book of Fundamentals. (Address:
.) It is in
the very first section
of this book where
--apart from the title of the Model-- the term inclusivity
appears for the first time.
E-MAIL QUESTION by A. G. on 58.52.1:
I'm looking for a translation of the Flemish play Elckerlyc.
Specifically, I would like to know if the debate on priesthood between
Knowledge and Five Wits that we have in the probable translation
Everyman is similar in the Flemish, if it even exists in Elckerlyc, and
how it actually translates. Could you email me just the preisthood
debate or any insight you might have about it?
ANSWER on 58.52.2:
I am sorry to inform you that i do not have, nor know of, any literal
translation of the Middle Dutch play Elckerlijc
). As i speak Dutch myself, i
have not been looking for one.
However, i think i can answer your question whether the debate on
priesthood between Knowledge and Five Wits in the Middle Dutch (or
'Flemish') Elckerlijc is similar to the English Everyman, for it
certainly is. 'Similar' must, then, be understood in the same way as
for the rest of the play. It definitely is not a completely literal
translation, if only because it was necessary to change words or the
order of words for the respective rime schemes in Dutch and English.
I have a copy of Elckerlijc and Everyman printed together on the left
and right pages. In this copy the debate on priesthood runs in Everyman
from line 706 ("Everyman, harken what I say:") to line 770 ("Which hath
made true satisfaction."), while in Elckerlijc it runs from line 660 to
line 725: 65 lines in both versions. The greatest deviation seems to be
in the last three lines, where Vijf Sinnen says in Elckerlijc:
"We are their [=the priests'] sheep and they our shepherds, /
By whom all of us are protected, /
Let's not talk about it anymore."
Other deviations are much smaller or, i believe, insignificant, as
far as contents are concerned.
FORM QUESTION by K. on 58.52.1::
Please justify the concept of ugliness throuhg the extemation of
traditionalist thank u as u do.
NO ANSWER given, which is, perhaps, justifiable but most regrettable.
FORM COMMENT by ? on 58.50.6:
Comments = what is the difference between
respectable and respecful?
NO ANSWER given, for i am still waiting in respectful silence for this
undoubtedly respectable person to contact me again and let me know 'er
FORM COMMENT by S. on 58.35.7:
I was lucky enough to come across the TRINPsite.
ANSWER unknown (lost?). It could have been: Now, i am lucky
enough to hear of your gratefulness!
E-MAIL QUESTION by A. M. on 58.24.3:
If you have time could you please offer advise to me, please?
I live in the U.S.A. and I have no one to discuss the Model of Neutral
I am indifferent to everything on, in and around this planet. Any
suggestions to what a person could do with his life if he possessed
knowledge of what is truth and what is not truth?
ANSWER on 58.25.4:
When you write that you are 'indifferent to everything on, in and around
this planet' i do not know how to interpret this. It could mean 'not
interested in' and 'not committed to anything', which i would regret. Yet,
you continue with wondering what life would be like if you 'possessed
knowledge of what is truth and what is not truth'. From this i take it that
you recognize at least truth as something good in itself.
As far as truth is concerned, this is what you should do with your life: do
not lie and do not break a promise (or even a threat), neither to others
nor to yourself. You will respect truth by not lying about a cookie you may
have stolen from a biscuit tin, but in general you respect truth by not
claiming or saying anything for which you have no evidence or logical
proof. Therefore you should resist all forms of supernaturalism, whether of
the institutionalized sort (as in a church or mosque) or not.
However, truth is only one value among several. And the recognition of
truth in isolation will merely make you a victim of irrelevantism. There is
so much more to life! Visit TRINPsite
) and see for yourself what the
acronym TRINP stands for. It stands for no fewer than five values (four
Should you not want to or not be able to read the Model of
Neutral-Inclusivity from beginning to end, you could start with the parts
of the Model linked to from the respective Value documents
for truth, etc).
Try to understand at least these parts of the Model and you will never need
to ask me or anyone else anymore what a person could do with 'er life. You
will only have to ask yourself what you could do in your particular
circumstances with your particular capacities to improve yourself and/or
the world of which you are part, if not in the short then in the long term,
alone or with others.
May TRINPsite inform and inspire you.
G:U:E:S:T:B:O:O:K QUESTIONS by Mike on 58.14.7:
Isn't this yet another attempt(well-meaning)at
consolidating belief systems in their most high structured truths and
relevances???? Isn't the path of not knowing the real discipline? And
anything consolidated and structured to a degree faulty in
ANSWER on 58.15.3:
I will try to answer your three questions.
TRINPsite is mainly based on the
Model of Neutral-Inclusivity
and this work
might be called "an attempt at consolidating a belief system", as you put
it. It is also --to use your words again-- very 'structured'. I do not know
how to interpret your phrase 'systems in their most high structured truths
and relevances', and therefore i must forgo dealing with this part of your
As to your second question: neither the path of knowing
nor the path of not knowing is the real discipline. The real discipline
lies in solely claiming what is justified belief and not claiming what you
cannot or do not know. Knowledge nor ignorance is an ultimate value in
is. You do not only respect the truth by
not telling falsehoods but also by not affirming or denying anything you do
not know. This is precisely why supernaturalist claims, like ordinary lies,
are objectionable. But do not believe and say that we do not and cannot
know anything at all, for then it would not even have made sense for you to
ask your questions and for me to write this reply.
The Book of Instruments
of the Model of
Neutral-Inclusivity is not only very clear about the value and
interpretation of truth but also about the value and interpretation of
. Unlike truth, relevance is a
relational notion: something is not (ir)relevant in some absolute sense but
always with regard to a certain goal.
So, when you ask me if a consolidated
and structured system is not faulty in relevance to a degree, i cannot
answer your question in general, since it depends on the (your?my?)
objectives. Yet, as far as TRINPsite and the Model are concerned, i will be
so bold as to answer you. The Model does certainly and most willingly
'consolidate' relevance and truth and a limited number of other values in a
very structured way. It is precisely because of its enforcement and
reinforcement of relevance as a value that it would be absurd to accuse it
of being faulty in relevance, especially where and when it surpasses any
specific focus of relevancy. You must realize that you yourself in your
formulation of your question implicitly treat relevance as a value too.
And, indeed, it is: the second of the TRINP values.
Should i not have answered your questions exactly and completely (which, i
fear, i have not), i hope i have at least made it worthwhile for you to
FORM QUESTION by ? on 57.41.6:
Comments = I would like some good phrases or
words to write in composition.
NO ANSWER given, as the wishful thinker did not leave 'er (name and)
FORM COMMENT by ? on 57.40.6:
Comments = This site sucks
NO ANSWER given, but this visitor certainly deserves to be praised for the
crystal clearness of the aural effects in 'er utterance. Could it be that
'e consulted my
Vocabulary of Alliteration?
FORM COMMENT by ? on 57.23.1:
Comments = At last I found a place were I
can breath pure air.
NO ANSWER given, as the giver of this unquestionably nice comment wished to
FORM QUESTION by T. on 57.05.4:
The writer of this Book of Instruments is a genius. It's the most
commonsense collection of thoughts I have read in a long time. That it is
written in such plain English is also refreshing. Why don't you get this
work published? It would never be accepted without being published
ANSWER on 57.05.5:
With regard to your question i must inform you that the Model of
Neutral-Inclusivity (consisting of three Books) was already published on
paper more than 15 years ago. (See
I don't know how much you've read of the Model, but one of the last ones
you would expect to accept this denominational-philosophical work is an
established publisher from an era dominated by religion and some
wishy-washy humanism or anemic atheism on the fringe. Therefore, it was
never offered to such a publisher. Instead, it was first published on paper
privately and since that drew hardly any attention, it was republished and
will continue to be republished on the Internet, where it is now drawing an
ever-increasing number of visitors and, presumably, readers.
You seem to suggest that the acceptance of a book depends on its
publication in print, and in the short run and from a traditional point of
view you may be right. However, in the long run such a publication does not
prove anything in itself. The Model is a work of reason and in the realm of
reason it is not the authority of a publisher, nor of a writer, that
counts, but the long-term validity of arguments. And i venture to believe
that eventually new sense will prevail over old nonsense, especially when
i'm getting encouraging comments like yours.
E-MAIL QUESTION by P. H. on 57.02.1:
What is your goal ????
ANSWER on 57.02.3:
E-MAIL QUESTION by T. on 56.47.6:
I was suprised to find your website.
I was baffled by the structure you have chosen.
I was amazed that I understood any of it and agreed with some of it.
Ok, how about a text file - say 10 or 50 pages - that summarizes the key
elements of your thought so that I can read it while propped up in bed.
This is a wager that your material makes enough sense to keep me (or
another site visitor) awake, in a brain-state to allow transmission of your
meme. If you lose, I fall asleep. If you win, the Dutch get to export
something other than cheese in red wax.
ANSWER lost during a change of computers or suchlike. (It must have been
the cheese or the wax.) Anyhow, T., if and when i win, there'll be no Dutch
citizen exporting anything to you; there'll be a native of this world
impressing it on you.