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:
- typical symbols: symbols typical of the DNI or
the Ananorm
- compatible symbols: acceptable symbols which are not
typical of the Ananorm
- antisymbols: unacceptable symbols which are somehow imposed
on adherents of the Ananorm
- 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 ignorantly, or even callously, 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 people 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 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 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.