TRINPsite, 56.16.5-56.16.5 




Usually an ideology is organized or centered round a body of writings which are considered authoritative by those concerned. In the case of a theodemonical ideology such writings are said to be 'sacred', because they would be connected in a supernatural or symbolic way with the supreme being itself, or with another principal being. Sacred, theodemonical or religious scriptures are called "holy books" too, but holy can also mean perfect, good or pure and, like heal and health, comes from the same root as whole. In this sense it is the norm of inclusivity itself, when taken proscriptively, which is the 'holiest' of all norms. (Theoretically it would be even 'holier' not to make any distinction under any circumstances. However, those adhering to such a principle have, wisely, never spoken about it.) In order to associate the 'holiness' of the norm of inclusivity as little as possible with exclusivist writings, we shall call them "sacred" rather than "holy". This also stresses their built-in or purported immunity from criticism.

What theodemonical, sacred writings have in common with the authoritative writings of certain political or other ideologies, is that they are exclusivistic but not necessarily in every respect and in every detail. They may contain passages compatible with the ideal of inclusivity, and that is why they are 'mixed' in a way: mixed exclusive-inclusive. In spite of this, they entirely deserve the epithet exclusivist(ic), because inclusivism does not allow for any exclusive belief, attitude or practise, and definitely not for a preponderance of such beliefs, attitudes and/or practises. Add to this the perpetual overrepresentation on the wrong side of especially monotheist and certain political ideologies in questions of abnegational discrimination and preferential treatment and it is clear that their mixed character never made theodemonical and other mixed writings inclusivistic. Even during an absolute and uninterrupted reign of a thousand years (and many centuries more than that) the holiness promised in theodemonical scriptures never prevailed for any considerable length of time, let alone any 'holiness' as radiated by the norm of inclusivity.

Perhaps it is not always clear that the mixture is one of exclusive and inclusive elements, but that exclusivist ideology is often terribly mixed (if not confused) is quite obvious. Exclusivist scriptures may recommend peace, justice, equality and a class- and stateless society at one place, while glorifying war, submission, lordship and the dictatorship of one particular class and the state at another place. Theodemonical tales in particular are tales of both tenderness and violence, of both bliss and disaster. A male god of love may try to spread his faith, and adherence to it, with a sword, sulphur and fire, lopping the heads off nonbelievers who will not convert, driving entire peoples into the sea and destroying complete cities. Theodemonical scriptures do not only speak of people who are to be sacredly stoned, but also about the sort of man who should be allowed to throw the first stone. A latter-day 'prophet' (that is, ethical theorist) has religiously tried to modernize this Stone Age passion by suggesting that not only adulterous women but also adulterous men should be punished this way, which would strip it of its sexism. Neither the ancient prophet of the religious writings nor the latter-day theorist did pronounce upon stoning to death itself as a penal practise, thus implicitly accepting and perpetuating its sacredness.

The mixed nature of most scriptures is also the reason why the ideologies in question are so incoherent (and plagued by schisms). Or, maybe, it was the other way around: the ideologies of the people who produced those scriptures were just too disordered to start with. The pitiful result of this is that their scriptures are often only coherent where they are immoral, and only moral where they are incoherent. The incoherence may even be a straightforward contradiction, for example, when a divine prophet is reported both as saying, "he that is not with me is against me" and as saying, "he that is not against us is for us". Those faithful to incoherent, mixed scriptures like these ones will therefore in practise have to choose between the exclusivist statements and the statements which are not incompatible with the ideal of inclusiveness, interdenominational inclusiveness in particular. (It does not help to say that no prescription is more important than, for example, the injunction to love, if some other, venomous or abominable prescriptions are not less important.) Altho the adherent may continue to pay lip-service to a theodemonical or political document as a whole, 'e is forced (or 'allowed') to make a choice where the different stories or exegeses of such a document cancel each other out. However, the adherent cannot then base 'er final choice of what to say and what to do in concrete cases on emotions or doxastic norms emanating from the ideology's scriptures themselves. The interpretation of an incoherent or polyinterpretable, denominational or political doctrine must be governed by external emotions or doxastic norms, if not the adherent's character itself. The attitude underlying the interpretation of mixed scriptures may, then, be humanistic or antihumanistic, fascistic or antifascistic, libertarian or antilibertarian, egalitarian or antiegalitarian, and so on.

The follower of sacred or political writings which speak of peace, tolerating people and respect for life in one place, and of holy wars and of fiendishly brutal aggression towards the same people and towards nonhuman animals in another place, must choose 'imself which order to strive for, and which of the rules laid down in those writings 'e will take seriously. If 'er choice between the norms and values of the religion or political ideology is not made purely at random or intuitively, 'e must base it on norms and values not belonging to this religion or this political ideology proper. And it is these external considerations determining 'er decision which might be more or less of an inclusive nature (for example, if the follower's interpretation is humanistic or egalitarian). Or, if the follower's choice was intuitive, this choice might be expressive of an inclusive ideal.

Any person adhering to an incoherent or polyinterpretable, exclusivist doctrine can therefore in practise think and behave in conformity with the norm of inclusivity so far as 'er relationship with other people is concerned, however much the doctrine 'e formally espouses may deviate from the inclusivistic one. This is a reason why it remains absolutely necessary not to confuse the total rejection of exclusivist ideologies with an exclusion of the people adhering to or sympathizing with such ideologies, unless these people show disrespect for other people's rights to personhood. It is, then, especially important that they do in no way infringe upon the rights of personhood of people who do not adhere to, and who do not sympathize with their religion, theodemonism or political creed, say, by trying to impose their own systems, rules or symbols upon them.

When the adherents of an exclusivist ideology founded on mixed scriptures display some kind of humanist, libertarian or egalitarian attitude which is as close as possible to an inclusive one, we are, of course, glad that they do so. Yet, we have to be very cautious (if not suspicious), not only because of the contradictions in their ideology itself, but also because of those between the attitude exhibited and large parts of the doctrine they claim to espouse. Given that there are indeed many correlations between exclusive beliefs, feelings, tendencies and actions in the same and in entirely different fields, their feelings or attitudes with respect to the mixed scriptures of their ideological doctrine simply cannot be steady when there are too many discrepancies to cope with. Their ideology allows them to take on an attitude tomorrow, completely different from that of today, without any change of faith or allegiance. Since the norms and values of that ideology are incoherent or admit of widely divergent interpretations, the adherents may but too easily modify their views, or pick just another set of norms and values, when times or circumstances have altered, and when it suits them. Their present emphasis on some liberal, egalitarian or peaceful aspect of their creed may be 'warranted' for them, but so is a possible, future (and so was a past) emphasis on the most monstrous and murderous exclusionism preached in other parts of their sacred scriptures or political writings. That's the negative: the scandalous episodes, statements or implications which are exegetically hushed up or explained away to prevent the general public from seeing thru the total scheme of such a theodemonical or political ideology.

Instead of giving up a 'partially inclusive' attitude by changing it into a more exclusive one, the adherents of a religion or political doctrine whose scriptures are mixed may also change their attitude into an inclusive one by giving up their exclusivist ideology. (Partially inclusive is a contradiction in terms, but contradictions is precisely what this section is about.) It is, then, not necessary that all interest in the ideology's scriptures be lost as well. But if not, they are not authoritative anymore and have become merely of anthropological, historical, literary or speculative-philosophic significance. Whether people who adhere to an exclusivist ideology founded upon mixed scriptures will finally abandon their attitude and interpretation or their ideology itself, in either case we must conclude that the feelings which characterize them cannot be expected to be steady and independent of times and circumstances. Those feelings may only be partially and contingently inclusive in practise at a certain moment at a certain place --that's all. Their instability is one of the reasons that the implementation of ideals compatible with the norm of inclusivity has never stood the test of time when pursued and carried out by people with mixed scriptures in their hands.

When a nation* treats the neglected as the preferred,
and the preferred as the neglected;
and when a nation treats the lesser as the greater,
and the greater as the lesser;
and when it thus includes
the adherents of theodemonical and of nontheodemonical**
denominations in a single one;
and when it thus includes
the denominational and the nondenominational in a single one
-- that is,
those who*** believe in the existence of a god and/or demon,
those who believe in the nonexistence of a god and/or demon,
and those who neither believe in the existence
nor in the nonexistence of any god or demon --,
then such a nation shall have entered
one of the provinces of inclusivity.

* : instead of "(such) a nation" one may read "this government", "you", and so on
** : instead of theodemonism one may take another factor of distinction, for example, the question of whether a denominational doctrine is religious or nonreligious, or the factor gender
***: instead of "those who" one may read "the person who", "what", and so on

Example of another Province of Inclusivity:

When you treat the neglected as the preferred,
and the preferred as the neglected;
and when you treat the lesser as the greater,
and the greater as the lesser;
and when you thus include
male and female in a single one;
and when you thus include the sexual and the nonsexual
in a single one
-- that is,
what is only male, what is only female,
what is both male and female, and
what is neither male nor female --,
then you shall have entered
one of the provinces of inclusivity.

©MVVM, 41-67 ASWW

Model of Neutral-Inclusivity
Book of Fundamentals
The Norm of Inclusivity
Two Principal Attitudes