3.3.4 |
A COMPARISON WITH THEODEMONIST PRINCIPAL BEINGS |
3.3.4.1
THE SUPREME
AND THE IMAGES OF GODS AND DEMONS
We go past the theodemonical arena
in which polytheists, monotheists and atheists
still compete for the irrelevances of the 'true' faith.
So far as the all-neutral supreme being is concerned
we know its value and significance as a symbol
but have no need to argue for its existence,
as a person or nonperson, in the realm of real things.
So far as gods and demons are concerned
we do not claim that there is no god or demon
but must reject the belief in them or their images
for what they fail to effect in the realm of right norms.
We do not worship a particular god or demon,
for the worship of a god or demon perpetuates
the dominion of exclusivist ideology.
We do not worship the supreme being,
for the purported worship of the supreme one gives
pride of place to an inferior being.
Typical of
theodemonist ideologies is,
firstly, that the 'good' principal beings (namely gods) are worshiped
or said to be loved, and secondly, that the adherents are expected to
unconditionally believe in the eternal existence of those principal
beings.
The latter may also apply to the 'bad' principal beings (devils or, more
generally, demons).
If there is believed to be only one, or a highest, 'good' principal being,
it plays the role of a supreme being and is named "God" in the present
language.
The belief in the true existence of such a supreme being is usually an
absolute prerequisite for genuinely adhering to monotheist
denominationalism.
Not believing in the existence of such a god is not believing in the
monotheist doctrine itself.
That is why the leaders of such ideologies cannot very well tolerate any
doubt about
Mono's existence.
Since they preach
the primacy of the authoritative
it is their own, earthly authority which has been doxastically derived from
that of the 'Supreme Being', and which therefore depends on it.
Throughout
this Model many reasons have been
given why
the all-neutral supreme being is no god as
conceived in theist systems of thought.
Unlike the god of monotheism in particular, the all-neutral supreme being
is not necessarily concrete or abstract, not necessarily human or
superhuman, not necessarily a person and not necessarily male.
Unlike the god of monotheism in particular, the all-neutral supreme being
did even as a person never consider, and does even as a person not
consider, any people, language, land or town as
'er special own, or as a people,
language, land or town which would be 'more equal' than all others.
Unlike the god of monotheism in particular, the all-neutral supreme being
did even as a person never demand, and does even as a person not demand,
the extermination of nonadherents or other human beings that
'e would hate extremely.
And unlike the god of monotheism in particular, the all-neutral supreme
being did not have, and does not have, an exclusive relationship with the
male members of the ruling class of a certain kind of human society as
reflected in terms such as King and Lord.
While the existence of
the all-ananic is disputable but irrelevant, the
existence of
the all-nanaic is as indisputable for us as that of
a god for a fervent theist. Yet, the important
difference with theist ideology is now that the existence of the
all-nanaic is not automatically assumed to be eternal.
As its continued existence is only needed until the state of
all-neutrality, or the least unneutral state possible, has been attained,
the eventual neutralistic ideal is the non-existence of the
all-nanaic.
Such cannot be said of any god! Theodemonists
also want the nonexistence of the devil or demons, to be sure,
but with respect to those principal beings they want their
immediate nonexistence, because they are not even believed to
have a function for the time being.
If the creator denotes the whole of all creative beings or
forces, then this 'creator' is part of the all-nanaic (if it is
not to be a destroyer). But the 'creator' is not a supreme being
that would be higher than the average human being. The
nanaicity of
the 'creator' is basically the same as the nanaicity
human beings can display themselves, for the all-nanaic
embraces, or can embrace, both the 'creator' and mortal human
beings. Such a concept of the creation of our world cannot be
found in theodemonist creeds.
The all-ananic is not a god, among other things, because it may
not really exist (or because we are allowed to believe that it
may or does not really exist). The all-nanaic is not a god, among
other things, because it may not eternally exist,
altho it does
exist at present. Another important reason why neither the
supreme nor the inferior, principal being is a god, is that
neither one can or must be worshiped. We know that the all-ananic
can not be worshiped, and we also know that the all-nanaic
should not be worshiped, since we should not honor (nor
dishonor) according to
the norm of nanhonore.
Unlike theists who erect temples —whatever they may be called&mdash
to worship their 'Supreme Being' &mdashwhatever he may be called&mdash or
other gods, neutralists are not allowed to build a place of worship for
the all-ananic or the all-nanaic, for honor and dishonor are alien
to the all-neutral supreme being itself or
'imself.
What they are allowed to, is to assign loci of
denominational representation;
that is, to dedicate certain places to the symbols of
ananicity and other places to the
symbols of nanaicity.
It is one thing to say what qualities, attitudes or actions
are, or would be, supreme, good or right; it is another thing to
claim that one and the same
primary thing would be
involved in all of them. But too often the supreme being is, or has
been, equipped with an artificial and gaudy collection of attributes,
some of which might go together and some of which could never
belong to one and the same outfit. Especially monotheist
religions love combining the supreme being and the creator in
one divine being. But a primary thing with such a concoction of
attributes does not exist in the light of our
veridicalist
model. On this model there does not even exist one primary thing
that comprises everything that is nanaic in the universe, let
alone one primary thing that comprises both everything that is
nanaic and everything that is supreme.
What comes, perhaps, nearest to the traditional concept of a god
in the fundamental symbolism of neutral thought is the notion of a
nanan.
A nanan does not only exist, it may be highly beneficent
and very powerful. Its existence does matter too in that its
nanaicity is relevant to a particular form of neutrality or to
neutrality in general. A nanan can also have a special
relationship with a particular people, region or place, just as it can
have a special relationship with a particular mode of neutrality
or facet of inclusivity. But such a nanan is always one of a
multitude of nanans. The 'pannanaon' of 'gods' acting in favor of
neutral-inclusivity is
practically inexhaustible. To take one of its members and to regard it as
a god, because it has been/is/will be so extraordinarily good in a
particular respect, or for a particular class of sentient beings, is in
itself no deadly sin. It is when such a god (or group of gods) is claimed
to be the sole one, and when the attributes of such a god (or
group of gods) are said to be perfect in themselves, that
theism degenerates into a system of reverence for the exclusive
and the extreme, a system of reference for the exclusive and the
extreme.