6.3.2 |
OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION |
6.3.2.1
NARROW IS THE NEUTRAL MIDDLE PATH
"Wide is the gate, and broad the way to destruction":
this is what an ancient of days once said.
So is the gate of gates of those who exclude:
wide, wider and widest.
And so is the way of ways of the exclusive:
broad, broader and broadest.
Whereas the wide gate is easy to go thru,
and the broad way easy to follow,
the unique path of perfect neutralness
is extremely hard to tread.
For the gate of the Norm is strait and precise;
neither to the left nor to the right does it extend.
For the gate of the Norm is straight and upright;
neither to abnegation nor to aggrandizement does it yield.
The way to one-pointed concentration
always was and will remain infinitely narrow.
Also this the ancients have said before:
"Like the sharp edge of a razor is the Path" --
the Middle Path of perfect harmony and unity,
that is.
When the members of a community share a denominational 'disciplinary
matrix', they have a conceptual apparatus in common with its own
terminology, analogies and metaphors; they use their own symbolic
expressions; and, most importantly, they adhere to their own system of
norms and values.
Whether such a cluster of concepts and methods, principles and assumptions,
not forgetting problems and solutions, has (already) become an undisputed
paradigm or not, the members of such a
community will feel the need to organize and expand their knowledge
and to relate what they know or believe to others, both members and
nonmembers.
A
neutral-inclusivistic community
will need to organize and expand its knowledge in the
Ananormative field; not for the
sake of knowledge, for knowledge is not an
ultimate or perfective value
in itself, but in order to be able to cope better with practical
and theoretical problems having to do with interpretation and
implementation, and with socialization and organization, on the basis of
the Ananorm.
Where this knowledge is not yet available it requires research, and where
it is available it requires the education of others and/or of ourselves
(as the case may be).
Research in the field of
denominationalism has
historically and traditionally been the prerogative of theologs (and of
specialists in demonology),
altho their domain
is merely that of
theocentrist ideologies and
forms of socialization.
Even so-called 'public' universities start, or used to start, their
curriculum with theology, or have made or made that course part of
it.
(We shall not speak here of so-called 'public' or 'interdenominational',
educational institutions that start, or used to start, their lessons with
some sort of theocentrist prayer.)
Since our own ideology and organizations are, or will be,
normistic, any
research in the field of normistic denominationalism will be, or
become, the task of 'normologs' (or whatever other name more
adequate than theolog(ue) or theologian one wants to give
these students or specialists).
This will mean one of three things for (quasi-)public and
non- or interdenominational private universities or
schools:
- theology and normology are ideological courses and do not
properly belong to the curriculum; to the extent that they
enhance scientific knowledge, they are part of subjects such as
mythology, sociology and history; to the extent that they are
philosophically illuminating or interesting, they are part of
philosophy; and to the extent that they are of artistic
significance, they are part of subjects such as literature and
architecture;
- theology and normology are mixtures of science, philosophy,
arts and ideology; where, when and so long as they both
exist, they shall (if taught at all) both be taught and the
one shall not be given priority over the other, neither in a
fundamental nor in a symbolic fashion;
- the study of denominationalism, and perhaps of ideology in
general, shall be open to anyone, shall not give priority to
any ideology or ideological axiom in particular, and shall not
in any exclusive way promote or perpetuate the symbolism of
any ideology or type of ideology (assuming that such an
approach is feasible at all).
From the point of view of the theory of denominational
paradigms as expounded in
division 6.3 of the Book of Instruments,
a combined study of denominationalism by theologs and normologs
together would be unthinkable. A theolog is in the words of such
a theory an exponent of the 'old normal-denominational
tradition'.
A neutral-inclusive normolog, on the other hand, is a disciplinary thinker
who accepts a new model as
'er paradigm,
and who will be but too eager to articulate it.
Like a scientist
'e
will be keenly interested in resolving the new paradigm's
residual ambiguities and in finding solutions to problems the
model does not deal with or has only drawn attention to as yet.
A normolog must, then, be able to take the basics of 'er system of
disciplinary thought for granted.
If 'e had to constantly defend the first principles and fundamental
concepts of
the Norm
against theologs, traditional moral philosophers or other opponents, 'e
would never come to furthering normology or Ananormative
denominationalism itself.
Instead, a normolog of
the DNI will feel
committed to 'open up new territory, display order (in the
correct sense), and test long-accepted belief'.
Theologs and others can only share 'er excitement of exploring this new
denominational territory if they forswear, or earnestly promise
to give up, their religion and
supernaturalism in general,
thus no longer contributing to the imposition and perpetuation of religious
symbolism, no longer starting from the primacy of the divinely
authoritative and no longer entertaining the presumption that all
denominationalism would have to be
theodemonistic or
supernaturalistic.
So-called 'public' and 'nonreligious' or 'nonsectarian'
private educational institutions have not only taught theology as a
subject (whether or not in combination with demonology), they
have often also looked after the education of clergymen (seldom
or never that of clergypeople). Students of this nonscientific
branch of education were, or still are, later to become the
officials and priests of the temple organizations of the
different religious brands. What applies to theologs very much
applies to the education of these men (of whatever religous
name) as well.
It is not that a neutral-inclusive society or community will ever be in
need of magic mediators between
Mono and man, and it is not that
such a society or community will ever be in need of a sacerdotal class of
pneumatologists or pastoral workers tending flocks of human sheep, and yet
also
the Model will have to be read by and
may have to be explained to people who are less knowledgeable or
intelligent, but who are, perhaps, the more interested or good-hearted.
When people have personal problems or worry about what is happening in the
world, or when they would like to be given advice in matters of personal or
suprapersonal concern, an Ananormative organization, too, could benefit
from employing persons with special qualifications; that is, not those of
specialists in mediating between Mono and man, but in mediating between the
Norm and laypeople of whatever gender, age and level of education or
intelligence.
These practitioners or counselors who are not as such disciplinary thinkers
themselves may be called "normicians".
(Normician stands to norm as beautician stands to
beaut(y), dietician to diet and technician
to techn(ics).)
Whereas a normolog is in a sense the counterpart of a theolog, a
normician is not to be thought of as the counterpart of a priest, or
merely partially so. A normician is, for example, not someone
who has to be officially invested with authority, or who has to
be a member of an Ananormative organization.
What counts is that 'e knows how to effectively help people on the basis
of the principles of the DNI, and how to effectively communicate
veridicalistic and
neutral-inclusivistic views in a way which is appropriate to the receivers
of the message -- a message which is not divine but normative.
It is also normicians or people with similar
capacities who will have to popularize the DNI, and to organize
sociodenominational actions and
activities.
In the event that old universities or schools have shed or
will shed their
religionist, sexualist and other
exclusivist or
supernaturalist leaves before the end of the term, there is a fair chance
that new leaves and flowers will begin to grow in the next term, or have
already developed and opened in the meantime.
If so, then these old schools do, as it were, become new
centers of research and education themselves.
In that case they could also take care of the education of normologs and
--if needed or desired-- of normicians, whether
or not in addition to that of theologs and priests.
However, should the old schools cling to traditions offending against the
Ananorm, and should new interideological public or private schools prove to
be ineffective or an illusion, the adherents of the DNI will have
every reason to establish their own institutes.
Whether or not special DNI centers of research and education are necessary,
and do or will exist, we must always bear in mind that the concentration
which is needed to learn and teach the principles of a normistic doctrine
is, properly speaking, not the concentration of classrooms, offices and
computers, let alone of bachelor cells in a monosexual monastery or convent.
Every research institute, every school, every assembly center is a luxury,
because the new
Dharma can be taught and received in
the shade of a tent or under a tree. It was done about two-and-a-half
thousand years before and human nature has not or hardly changed since.
