In view of truth, relevance and neutrality the adherents of the DNI cannot rely on any deus ex machina or other contrived 'solution' offered to them by theocrats or technocrats. While keeping in mind the three good ends, they must perforce rely on their own realization. This means that they should personally try to live as much as possible in accordance with the principles of the DNI, and that they should avoid as much as possible situations in which these principles might conflict. They should especially not threaten other people, unless this is needed for very urgent reasons, or unless the context concerned is metadoctrinal rather than doctrinal. When individual adherents of the DNI or a group of adherents of the DNI do succeed in living in accordance with the principles of the doctrine, they must not advertise their anafactiveness and truthfulness. For the genuine inclusivist does not attempt to call other people's attention to 'er wholeness or 'holiness'.

Those with a supernaturalist, exclusivist or extremist belief or attitude may endeavor to refute and ridicule the doctrine put forward in this Model in all possible ways. If so, they will demonstrate again that supernaturalism, exclusivism and extremism do exist, and that it remains a matter of all-encompassing necessity to unremittingly fight against such ideologies. Where, and to the extent that, the DNI is indeed imperfect, the neutral-inclusivist shall help to improve, to further and to refine it. The choice which people have in the actual world of denominationalism is not a choice between one completely certain and perfect doctrine on the one hand and all lesser doctrines on the other --such a choice they do not even have in the world of science--; the choice they have is one between the most plausible, least imperfect doctrine on the one hand and all less plausible, more imperfect ones on the other. The imperfection or incompleteness of the doctrine which is to become the new denominational paradigm is then not different from that of a new scientific paradigm.

When supernaturalists, or people who say that they adhere to the DNI, indulge in flights of fancy and flagrantly violate the requirement of truth, or when exclusivists, or people who say that they adhere to the DNI, draw unjust distinctions and flagrantly violate the requirement of inclusivity, or when extremists, or people who say that they adhere to the DNI, strive for the most unneutral and flagrantly violate the requirement of neutrality, they may be told that it is wrong according to what we believe to be the most plausible, least imperfect of denominational doctrines. And it may always be pointed out to them that the Norm does not require, but that the Norm requires.

THE NORM DOES NOT REQUIRE; THE NORM REQUIRES
 
The Norm does not require
that we speak,
but if we speak,
we should tell the truth.
And if we are not sure what is the truth,
we shall carefully avoid telling a falsehood.
For the Norm requires
that we intend and try to tell the truth only.

The Norm does not require
that we make distinctions,
but if we make a distinction,
we should make a relevant one.
And if we are not sure what distinction is relevant,
we shall carefully avoid making an irrelevant one.
For the Norm requires
that we intend and try to make relevant distinctions only.

The Norm does not require
that we aim at something,
but if we aim at something,
we should ultimately aim at neutrality.
And if we are not sure what serves neutrality ultimately,
we shall carefully avoid serving an unneutral purpose.
For the Norm requires
that we intend and try to aim at neutrality only.
(For the Ananorm requires
  that we intend and try to aim at perfect neutrality only.)*