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.