6.2.1 |
ORGANIZATIONS AND MEMBERS |
Where people have a common eternal or long-term goal and
want to achieve something worthwhile, there always arises the
need to set up a more stable, formal structure, that is, the need to
associate themselves in an organization. If such an organization
has the advancement of the doctrine of neutral-inclusivity and of
neutral-inclusivity itself
as its goal, then the initiation and/or coordination of
fundamental neutral-inclusivistic action
and of
symbolic neutral-inclusivistic
confirmation will somehow constitute its objectives.
Everyone who agrees with, or is interested in, these objectives should be
free and able to join an organization of people with the same objectives.
Let us call such an organization "a
DNI association (of
sympathizers)". The sole requirement such a DNI association will have to
fulfil is that its existence is not on the whole detrimental to the
anabasis, the advance
of the neutral-inclusive movement or of neutral-inclusivity. Similarly,
the sole requirement an individual person will have to fulfil in order to
become a member is that
'er membership is not on the
whole detrimental to the anabasis. (Unlike many religious temple societies,
veridicalists shall not
claim that people are members of their organization solely because
they have been forcefully circumcised as a little boy or girl
or dipped in or sprinkled with water as an infant or child.)
Now, when someone's applied-for membership of a DNI association
is on the whole not detrimental to the aggregate ideal of
the DNI, it does not mean that such a person could not be, say,
a member of an organization with an incompatible ideology at the
same time. It does not follow from the fact that our doctrine is
coherent (or minimally incoherent), that the beliefs of all
followers of our doctrine will be coherent too (or minimally
incoherent). Some may be so undisciplined as to adhere to
incompatible doctrines or parts of doctrines.
If someone who claims that
'e
sympathizes with neutral-inclusivism and veridicalism,
sympathizes with
extremist,
exclusivist or
supernaturalist
ideas as well, this will certainly in some respect harm the
cause of the DNI, but it is then not necessarily the case that
'er membership will have more disadvantages than advantages from
the perspective of this cause. However, it seems that in the
short term truth would be the value most seriously violated in
such a situation. This would probably also be the case, if someone joined
a DNI association for purely opportunist reasons. The phenomenon has been
well-known throughout history: human beings with little regard for
principles or the effects on other human or nonhuman beings join a club
which is big, powerful, rich or fashionable and stay with it so
long as it remains big, powerful, rich or fashionable.
But as soon as a different group which used to be small, powerless, poor
or unfashionable starts to flourish they do not refrain from
changing color and allegiance overnight. A DNI association will
have to accept such opportunists nevertheless in the event that
their membership serves the neutral-inclusive cause on the whole.
In the long run inconsistent beliefs and opportunism are pernicious to
personhood,
truth,
inclusivity and/or
neutrality.
That is why an organization that intends to promote all four
ultimate ideals of
the Ananorm
must require more from its members than that they sympathize,
or say that they sympathize, with these ideals.
Such members should then also be required to
be genuine and faithful adherents. This is not something that
can be asserted about people who at the same time somehow
support, sympathize or work with an organization or group
with an ideology offending against the Ananorm; it is even not
something that can be asserted about people who did recently
somehow support, sympathize or work with such an organization or
group. (Recently, for example, in the relative sense that
their conversion took less time than the number of years they
belonged to exclusivist or suchlike groups, or in the absolute
sense that their conversion took less than 2 years or so.) This
is not to say, of course, that members of a DNI association
would not be genuine and faithful adherents. On the contrary:
all of them may be conscientious, nonopportunist members but
--and this is what is meant here-- not
because of the conditions of membership.
A denominational organization that requires from
neutral-inclusivists that they do not, and did not recently, adhere to
or perpetuate the influence of incompatible doctrines (or metadoctrines)
and that they do not, and did not recently, sympathize or work
with groups promoting an incompatible cause, may be called
"an anastomosis (of adherents)".
An anastomosis --or stomosis for short--
is, as it were, an organizational network of sincere adherents of the DNI.
It can be part of a DNI association, but a DNI association
cannot be part of an anastomosis.
Not only are the conditions of membership of an
anastomosis more specific (with an incompatibility and an
anti-opportunism clause), the conditions of founding an anastomosis
should be more specific too. Because of the special role of
truthfulness, sincerity and faithfulness with respect to the
doctrine in the anastomotic perspective, an anastomosis should
in the first instance unite adherents who speak the same
language, for the interpretation of truth and consistence in
belief is in
practise
language-dependent.
Each anastomosis is therefore to be an anastomosis of the speakers
of a particular language in which this
Model (or at least
the Book of Fundamentals) has
been made public. Whereas there may be several DNI associations
for one speech community, or one DNI association for several
speech communities, there should be no more than one anastomosis
for each speech community, and vice versa.
If, and when, there exist several anastomoses that join in a
federation, they do not lose their moral sovranty
(for example, in that they would not have the right to separate).
For it is not the interlinguistic federation but the assemblies of
the speakers of the same language that ultimately retain the
independent power to decide.
(This argument is only valid if, and so long as, communities must
be regarded as different language communities on
nondenominational, nonpolitical grounds.)
While an anastomosis or a federation of anastomoses may have an
organizational hierarchy when this is necessary or desirable for its
functioning, such a hierarchy must not be based on, or reflect,
individual or other forms of
personative exclusivism.
Instead of being dictatorial, monarchical, oligarchic, patriarchal,
aristocratic, plutocratic or bureaucratic, an anastomosis or federation
of anastomoses is to be a democratic organization which can maintain
itself and perform its good work without physical or mental coercion.
Under normal circumstances it is not to have a permanent president or
'secretary' as nominal or de facto head of the organization as this
will merely contribute to personative exclusivism.
Instead of a permanent explicit presidency (or something of that ilk),
there should be no presidency at all or a presidency with limited tenure.
In the latter case a construction in which the members of a special
'central council' of at least three members take turns at performing
duties which are traditionally and legitimately those of a president
is the first thing to be considered.
Only under exceptional circumstances should an anastomosis
or federation of anastomoses (temporarily) be led by one person
with great official, executive and/or ceremonial power; that is,
great in comparison with the power of others in the
organization.
The final, normative 'authority' in anastomotic matters
rests with the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity, since it is
on the basis of this Model that each anastomosis will be,
or has been, founded, while membership of an anastomosis is voluntary.
Altho
the Model is not a sacred body of writings purportedly brought
forth by one or more supernaturally infallible persons or suchlike
beings, no organization can decide either by a tie or by a
majority or minority of votes that the Model would be incorrect
or partially incorrect.
It is only if, and when, all members of an anastomosis (or those they have
freely given a mandate to) agree, and continue to agree, that a small part
of the Model in their language is not fully compatible with the rest of it,
that they (or their democratic representatives) may decide to deviate
from what is stated in the part of the Model in question.
They will then recognize its overall 'authority' nonetheless.
This abstract 'authority' is, of course, a nonpersonal
one not to be confused with the personal authority of
those who believe in
the primacy of the authoritative.
In an even more abstract or symbolic strain, the final 'authority' in
intrinsic anastomotic matters must be conceived of as resting
with the doctrine of neutral-inclusivity: 'the doctrine
that is our master'.
Since every speech community has the right to a sovran
denominational organization, also the speakers of This Language
may have their own anastomosis.
If they do indeed found such an organization, its name shall be
the Anastomosis of (the Speakers/Adherents of) This Language.
And it shall be one among the anastomoses of the speakers of all other
languages.
