The only community that does not divide is the community of all people. (By dividing those who are part of them from those who are not, communities unite those who are part of them; and, perhaps, also those who are not with others who are not. Religious communities, and nongeographical ones in general, even divide geographical communities, if existing at all.)
In theocentrist doctrines the term superior refers to one or more people or gods of higher rank and class; in our normistic doctrine it refers to things of higher value. In theocentrist doctrines the term hierarchy refers to a system which distinguishes the one or more ruling monarchs or priests from those ruled over; in our normistic doctrine it refers to a system of higher, equal and lower levels of thinking and evaluation. In theocentrist doctrines the term primacy refers to the position of the priest of the highest rank; in our normistic doctrine it, that is, denominational primacy, refers to the position of the normative, that is, norms and values.
Who lacks the power should make the proper difference with influence. (This even, or first of all, applies to the supreme being or to being supreme.)
Every form of misbelief —supernaturalism, exclusivism or extremism— is ultimately self-destructive.
There is an animal species of which the members call their own species "Homo sapiens". With the first, generic part of that name they celebrate, if not their sexism, their lack of critical discernment, as homo is used both for every member and for males exclusively. With the second, specific part they celebrate, if not their stupidity, their lack of scientific discipline, as being wise or being stupid, or something in between, is not a biological criterion whatsoever.
Some people can only think in terms of vicious extremes. Tell them that in the current situation an extreme is bad and not something to strive for, and they will tell you how bad the other extreme is, and that they would rather stick to the current situation. They see no middle way, no neutrality in between.
Ten-fingered fetishists see their '10' (or a larger number of numerical significance in the radix-10 system) everywhere, and when it is not there, they will make it exist and visible, as if occurring naturally. Thus, ten-fingered fetishists who are idea and value eclectics as well may proudly offer you a list of ten commandments, commitments or other such items supposed to be valuable from a grab bag, as if it were the most religious or rational thing humanity ever came up with.
The right to procreate (or 'of procreation') with one, two or three children, that is, two on average, is no right to explode with four or fourteen children. Once the procreation contributes to the flooding of the environment (in more than one sense of flood), it takes away the freedom of others (and not only humans) to live, and to live on, in peace, free from existential threat. Without the necessary limitations, the personal right to procreate degenerates into a curse of population explodists; a curse on all others, human and nonhuman beings, animals and plants, the whole of nature.
There is a fundamental distinction between middle-of-the-road people and people of the middle road. Middle-of-the-road people favor ideas most people of their time and place agree with. The road on which they travel (in the middle) may be straight, but it may also sharply curve to the left or to the right. Whether it is straight or curved (too much) to the left or to the right does not interest these people, nor whether it is in the middle, on the (far) left or on the (far) right. What interests them is that most people take the same road. The people of the middle road, on the other hand, favor ideas which are ultimately neutral, regardless of what most people of their time and place think about it. The road on which they travel is itself in the middle, and also straight, curving neither to the left nor to the right. Naturally, people of the middle road too hope that most people will follow the same true and relevant middle course; and if so, they will be happy about this. But if not so, they will still take the middle course, however difficult it may be under the circumstances.
Teaching may be a form of spreading knowledge among others, or of training them in one or more particular skills. Especially where beliefs or so-called 'knowledge' are concerned, it is quite possible that the purported teachings by a person or organization are little or nothing more than 'dumb(ing)-downings'.
When institutions or ideologies do not have an adequate symbol-generating faculty which is shown in things suprapersonal from the most literary or abstract words and names to the most impressive physical or concrete objects, they will start to honor individual persons out of all proportion. Thus, they may attach the name of a religious or secular 'saint' to their prizes, may call their buildings, streets or territories after them, and so on. This may also be done in addition to the abstract and/or concrete symbols an institution or ideology already makes use of. However, it is saddening when it has to be done because of the lack of any symbolic faculty inherent in that institution or ideology which is not able to show any (or enough) creativity to turn words or physical objects into desired and desirable symbols. It is disgusting when it is done out of sheer symbolic anemia.
This is the core of the new New Year card: (1) it wishes you a good new year, not only good to yourself (with a pleasant New Year Day), but also good to others; and (2) it is shown at the beginning of a calendar year which starts at the Northern Winter Solstice, one of the four days in the year naturally given. At the beginning of the 79th year after the Second World War, the core of a bilingual card may look as follows (with the text in a 'neutral-inclusive' succession of the primary colors of light):
The Book of Fundamentals of the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity was the first book in which the question of denominational primacy was introduced and explained in modern philosophical terms. (The issue itself was already discussed in a more informal religious dialogue at least two and a half thousand years earlier.) Lifestance-related systems of thought or denominational paradigms (such as religions) which start from the primacy of one or more gods (or demons) are called "theocentrist", those which start from the primacy of one or more norms or values "normistic". The crucial point is that not only a monotheist or polytheist takes a theocentrist position, but also an atheist who uses atheism as 'er denomination and spends 'er life arguing that god(s) do not exist, thus implicitly showing that the question of 'er/ his/ His/ her/ their existence is of fundamental significance in this atheist's worldview. An agnostic does the same by using the denominational label agnostic, but in a less outspoken way. Now, more than 37 years after the first publication of the paper Model (and more then 27 years after the publication of The Question of Denominational Primacy on the internet), the nonreligious continue to write, publish and read numerous discussions, articles and whole books about humanity's history of atheism and/or agnosticism, about their own personal histories of atheism and/or agnosticism, and about how they have confronted, or still confront, the threats of (totalitarian) theistic religion. They may all contain very lucid views for those who are badly caught up in the dark of theocentrist religion, they may all offer very pleasant reads to those who have successfully freed themselves from such a religion; and yet, these writings will not have any lasting effect on the fundamental denominational choice to be made. Altogether, it will keep God up, the Norm down; that is, highlight the others' recognition of one or more gods (and/or demons), while leaving no or less attention in space and time for work on the one or more norms and/or values to be emphatically recognized in their place. It will not only make theocentrism rule the majority of the religious forever; if unchallenged, it will also make theocentrism rule the majority of the nonreligious forever. But, of course, it is infinitely so much easier to attack an old, truth-flouting and self-righteous religion than to contribute to the development of a new, well-grounded and well-founded lifestance paradigm which gives a normistic answer to the question of denominational primacy.
The third-person pronoun proposed in the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity in the 41st year after the Second World War was 'e (subjective case) with 'im, the objective case, and 'er, the possessive form. It was and still is a well thought-out proposal for This Language, which is a language with grammatical number, but traditionally without a third-person singular (rather than exclusively masculine and exclusively feminine pronouns for the singular). Fortunately, since the publication of the paper Model it has become less and less socially acceptable to use he to refer to what may be a female or feminine person too. But now, unfortunately, more and more often it is they which is being used, not only for the plural, but also for the singular (with unforeseen awkward consequences for a language with number). (True, you is traditionally used for both the singular and the plural too, but this does not mean that it would still not have been very convenient to have a singular you as distinct from a plural you in contemporary English as well. Even a language such as Chinese, which in general does not show number, has plural forms for the plural we, you and they!) Moreover, the number deniers use their singular they not as a general third-person pronoun to refer to one person — far from that! In the singular they use it for an indefinite person only, one of whom one does not know the sex or gender, or one of whom that sex or gender is not considered clearly male or masculine, nor clearly female or feminine. (It is one thing to say or write "I was lucky that someone warned me about that sinkhole. They —he or she?— said it was just around the corner"; and quite a different thing to say or write "I was lucky that Vincent warned me about that sinkhole. He —they?— said it was just around the corner".) They in itself is not sexually irrelevantistic, let alone sexist, definitely not when referring to more than one person. However, when it is used to refer to one particular person the number denier is still expected to use he, if referring to a boy or man, or she, if referring to a girl or woman, even in a context in which sex and/or gender are/is totally irrelevant. And yet, this use of they, he or she for the singular together is, perhaps, not as clumsy as he or she. What to think of a sentence such as Not only has he or she corrupted and reduced the very generality he or she otherwise claims is virtuous ..., but, more fully, by so doing he or she has simultaneously corrupted evidence and reason too? (Note that she or he would be equally irrelevant and cumbersome as he or she.) The one who is responsible for this threefold sexual irrelevantism should definitely change 'er third-person singular-pronoun policy. And not to they and their!
If neutral-inclusive ideas and actions upend the status quo at some place and at some moment, it is not to upend the status quo. It is to put an end to oppressive supernaturalism, exclusivism, unneutralism and/or totalitarianism; it is to uplift the believers in truth and relevance, the discriminated against, the ones treated unequally and all persons whose right to freedom was flouted in the situation which existed before.
Somewhere, unburdened by any jumble of norms and values which pluralists may produce, or by any single ultimate value which monists may suggest, there is veridical truth. And together with this truth, supported by a second pillar, there are relevance and inclusivity. And together with these three, precisely in the middle, there is catenical neutrality, nothing less and nothing more.
A writer or artist whose work receives little or no recognition (on a public scale) during 'er own life may wish it to be recognized after 'er death, for it has happened enough times before. I myself am not any different, or it must be that i prefer a lasting good influence after my death to some ephemeral fashionable fame during my life. There are and were so many writers and artists of the latter kind already. They may even be called "the greatest painter" (or some other type of artist) or "the greatest philosopher" (or some other type of writer) "of their time", before they are dead. All i am convinced of, provided that my work survives the decay of my body, is that i will never be considered (one of) the greatest (of a particular category of) thinker(s) of their so-called "twentieth" or "twenty-first century". If anything, i will be (one of) the greatest (of a particular category of) thinker(s) of the first, perhaps even the following, periods of one hundred and twenty-eight years. After the Second World War, that is.
I did not develop and design a new denominational doctrine and symbolism that would rise to a rage and then fall from fashion; the former not even during my own lifetime, the latter not even during the time which my body will take to decay after my death (if not cremated, that is).
This is the third stanza of Vinsent Nandi's poem The Inexhaustible Dao:
I do not know of any monarchy in which the monarch is not a king ('King') or queen ('Queen') by the grace of a theocentrist theft of a state which belongs to all, regardless of denominational primacy (theocentrist versus normistic) and regardless of a theocentrist's worldview being polytheistic, monotheistic or atheistic.
A new denominational doctrine or 'worldview' ('life stance', 'religion' or what else it may be called) without a fruitful and characteristic symbolism is like a bird that hatched, but that, apart from some measly ones here and there, just does not grow healthy feathers: perhaps temporarily viable it will be unable ever to fly far in the course of human history.
Whereas another person endeavored to construct a complete philosophical edifice de novo and merely adjusted 'imself to a traditional theocentrist worldview, i constructed a philosophical edifice de novo and founded on it an equally new normistic worldview.
It may be very useful to have ten fingers, that is, two hands, both with a thumb which can be moved to be opposite any of the other four digits. And it may be equally useful to have an old custom like keeping to the right or to the left when passing each other on a narrow strip of land or in a narrow strip of water. Yet, ten fingers are not an argument when it concerns questions which are nothing to do with the firm grasp of the human hand, of which the firmness and flexibility follows from the opposability of the thumb, not from the number of (other) fingers of the same hand being four. And yet, always having kept to the right or to the left is not an argument when it concerns questions which are nothing to do with having to choose collectively for either the right or the left side in traffic in order to make it predictable and run smoothly.
Labels such as Left and Right, Woke and Anti(-)woke are not normative criterions of the DNI or the Ananorm. They do not reflect the (doctrinal) principles of the DNI, nor the (doctrinal and metadoctrinal) principles of the Norm: truth, relevance and inclusivity, neutrality and personhood. They are not even products of veridical, relevant, neutral or personhood-related reflection themselves. The adherent of the Norm should definitely be alert to all forms of prejudice and all forms of discrimination which are not negligible, and therefore also to racial prejudice and racial discrimination, or to sexual prejudice and sexual discrimination, or to (pro- or anti-)religious prejudice and (pro- or anti-)religious discrimination, and so forth. But something's being 'left' or 'right' in some polemic political sense, 'woke' or 'anti-woke' in some ill-considered social sense is not to be a criterion in itself, for it may not only guide you to what is better or much better; it may probably also or frequently guide you to what is worse, or much worse.
"Change is good, no change is better", some say; and they may be right in a particular situation. However, as a generalization the saying is wrong, if not preposterous. Change may be good, no change may be better, but in general may be good or better, bad or worse, or neither, just like no change. Yet, arguing for change as a goal in itself, regardless of the circumstances, is definitely wrong, whereas no change as a goal in itself can definitely be right when and where the circumstances are good.
Some say that the universe is not limited by what people or they can imagine. That's true, but at the same time it's an irrelevant distinction between limitations and enlargements (extensions or expansions) which is being made here, for the universe is not enlarged either by what people can imagine. (Compare someone claiming that reality is not limited by what women can imagine, whereas it is not limited by what men can imagine either, or vice versa.) Even imagination itself, in the shape of scientific or artistic creativity, for instance, may be a good thing which can further a better understanding of the world on the one hand, but which, once solidified into fixed religious or social ideas, for instance, may also be a bad thing which stands in the way of a better understanding of the world and cultural progress on the other hand.
The fact that i spell the first-person pronoun i with a small letter, except when other words are capitalized too, proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that i am not a ('capital-S') Supreme Being or anything else of that ('capital-I') Ilk.
Some say that 'one stops being a child on the day that one understands the word duty'. They are mistaken: one stops being a child when one realizes that there are duties where there are rights, and vice versa; when one comprehends both the meaning of duties and of rights. Especially a duty-obsessed deontologist ought to stop being a child one day.
The official standpoint of mathematics is that the radix of the positional numeral system you use is entirely arbitrary, for a number which can be expressed in one radix or 'base' (usually but not necessarily a natural number) can be equally well expressed in the other (2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, or 60, for instance) so long as it is not 0 or 1. Meanwhile, numerous lustrums or 'lustra' (quinquenniums or five-yearly anniversaries), decennials, centennials or 'centenaries', sesquicentennials, bicentennials or 'bicentenaries' and even a millennium are and have been celebrated by traditional mathematicians, students and professionals alike, to commemorate the founding of their students' unions or professional organizations, of their universities, of the whole countries that provide them a living and a sounding board, or even of their so-called 'common' system of chronological notation; not to forget all the denary anniversaries of the births and deaths of their heroes which demand their further attention. "Started the union precisely four years ago?" "Fine, that's precisely one more year to go!" "Founded the university ninety-six years ago?" "That'll be a fantastic centenary soon!" "Signed the country's constitution two hundred and fifty-six years ago next month?" Of no interest at all: it is either fifty-six years too late or forty-four years too early. Funny, if not tragicomic, how the social practice kind of disproves the exact theory in the head of the so-called 'queen' of the sciences.
When individualists defend a purported primacy of the individual person and communitarians or collectivists a purported primacy of the community or collective, they suggest that either the egg or the chicken came first. However, the chicken-and-egg question itself is erroneous, because it confuses the long present static time span with a relatively short dynamic time span preceding it; and it suggests that that the chicken and the egg themselves are the genetic material in which the change took place in the course of time. Similarly, it is neither the individual nor the group, collectivity or community that came first, it is the culture-generating ideas in which the change takes place in the course of time. Single individuals or small groups of individuals will develop these ideas which may seem to be 'totally new' but which will also build on old ones, just like genetic material. In this sense, society needs the individuals, but the individual, in turn, depends on society too. An individual's fertile new ideas will die back, if not die out, both in a society that keeps the land barren and in a society that has the water but weeds out these ideas, because it is unable to comprehend them.
Those who ask you, "What was first: the chicken or the egg?", ask that question in a contemporary state of mind in which both the chicken and the chicken's egg have had all the properties of what makes a member of the species a member of that species, and not a different one, for ages already. A What came first question, however, does not belong to such a static period; it belongs to a period of transition from the one species to the next. And that transition is neither in the chicken as a whole nor in the egg as a whole; it is in the genetic material which both of them have. A change in that material may have occurred in the adult male chicken (in his sperm), in the adult female chicken (in her ovum) or somewhere in the egg, but the chicken and the egg themselves is not what it is about. So long as you focus on the wrong time span and the wrong material, you will never be able to decide when and where the specific transition took place; and you will remain in your own chosen chicken-and-egg situation forever.
Neutralism does not mean that you will have to choose or strive for every form of neutrality in every situation. It means, first of all, that your ultimate goal should not be an unneutral one. And, with a neutral instead of unneutral goal, it means that you must decide what serves neutrality in the end, when neutrality in one respect does, or seems to, require unneutrality in the other. Indeed, the path of neutralism is always narrower, yet never gone.
Inclusivism does not mean that you will have to include everything and everyone in every situation. It means, first of all, that if you do draw a distinction, it should not be an irrelevant one. And, with an inclusive instead of exclusive attitude, it means that you must decide how inclusivity is not self-defeating in the end, since it cannot include exclusivist systems, ideologies and attitudes. Indeed, the path of inclusivism is always wider, yet never widest.
A language with no more than one second- or third-person (singular) pronoun is the poorest you can imagine (as far as this one aspect is concerned). Yet, it is more adequate than a richer language with only second- and third-male and second- and third-female pronouns, because such a language forces sexual irrelevantism on you, person, in a context in which sex or gender is totally irrelevant. A language which has second- and third-person, second- and third-male and second- and third-female pronouns is not only the richest one possible in this respect but also adequate. Moreover, it gives you a possibility to intentionally stress sex or gender where this is not only relevant but also desired, if only to modestly eroticize what you, girl or woman, boy or man, are saying or writing.
A new culture always implies the replacement of an old one, but there need not be a total replacement, let alone a total destruction. A culture which is new as regards content emerges with new norms and/or values, new ideas and symbols in the first place, and with what may prove to be nice and/or useful in the second place. Yet, in order to become known and accepted, and for its foundation, a substantively new culture relies heavily on creative and constructive activism, because everything only stays the way it was (good or bad, right or wrong) where people resign themselves to what has always been, uttering no criticism and leaving things unchanged out of ignorance, lack of interest or sheer laxness. However, destructive cancel culture activism (which may be a by-product of constructive activism) does not build anything by itself. Unless the culture to be 'canceled' stands, and keeps on standing, in the way of the new culture obtrusively, it is questionable whether this kind of activism will manage to compensate for the errors of the past in a sound fashion.
The joy of culture is found by those who cultivate their enjoyments.
In the term religious or religionist criticophobia, phobia is used in the correct sense of the word, since it refers to a dread or fear, something that in itself is quite different from a feeling of hatred, let alone, an objectionable theory or practice. Besides the so-called 'phobia' of a particular religion, homophobia too is a word often used in a way which does not convey its proper meaning, because in the first place it should refer to a fear of one's own actual or possible erotic contact with a member of one's own sex; and only in the second place, if applicable, of the homosexuality of others, but still as a problem of the homophobe him- or herself. To label a heterosexist who hurts, injures or kills human beings that are not exclusively hetero "a homophobe" is blatantly off target, because if such a character really possesses enough power or influence and hates homo- or bisexuals, without being afraid of them —as probably in most cases— he or she is in the first place a social problem of all human beings that are not exclusively heterosexual, altho also a societal problem of all those who refuse to put up with bullying and criminal violence regardless of whom it hits. Of course, a heterosexist may very well be homophobic in addition to this. If so, this human being will also have a mental or psychic problem, if his or her fear stands in the way of what he or she really desires or would like to do or have, or to be able to do or have. Fear is not a moral flaw; hurting, wounding or killing others out of hate definitely is.
Passing criticisms on people and things is a form of free speech which ought to be possible, but, like so many other activities in life where space-time has to be shared with others, it need not be allowed at any moment at any place. According to some people you may, even if the time and place are not unsuitable, pass criticism —not just unfounded sentiments, of course— on anything whatsoever, also political and nonreligious ideologies —preferably constructive, of course— except on religions, that is, religious denominational ideologies. (The idea behind this may be that religion is so much more important in someone's life than a political ideology, but if so, then it works both ways: not only its positive, also its factual or possible negative influence needs so much more attention.) The fear underlying a cowardly self-immunization strategy which does not even allow of rational criticism of the theory one has or the religious or nonreligious doctrine one follows or adheres to is what i would like to call "criticophobia". If it concerns the protection of religion in general from criticism, then it is religious criticophobia; if it concerns especially the unequal position of religious citizens vis-à-vis fellow citizens with a different or no religion, then religionist criticophobia.
If and when my work needs to be translated into a different language, do not ask a translator who thinks that every widely supported irrelevance and each generally accepted inconsistence in that language is perfectly normal. Rather find a Norm-abiding righter of wrongs than a tradition-fettered writer of mistaken correctness. Nonetheless, deviation from a convention is not a goal in itself. At best it is a non-neutral goal on a lower level, and at worst an unneutral goal, even on a higher level, when sticking to the convention is anafactive; because deviating from a convention (linguistic in this case) must serve a neutral or otherwise Ananormative goal on a higher level.
In traditional arithmetic the portion is denigratingly called "a fraction", and she has been created by a Supreme Being from the ribs of two integers. In the new arithmetic the portion will be a number in its own right, each individual having a name and formulaic definition not derived from those of integers, just as integers have their name and formulaic definition not derived from those of portions.
It is better to be remembered as someone who went from riches to rags than as someone who went from right to wrong behavior, or from 'virtues' (with its sexist origin) to vice.
Le Modèle neutre-inclusif est un modèle achevé avec ses trois livres : le Livre des instruments, le Livre des fondamentaux et le Livre des symboles. Mais jusqu'à présent, c'était aussi un modèle non achevé sans au moins un quatrième livre : le Livre des événements.
When people are distinguished on the basis of their being (fully) vaccinated or not against a certain virus, some immediately object to this vaccination (or, perhaps, any vaccination) being a criterion for admittance, for instance. They claim that they are being discriminated against, suggesting that the distinction drawn, which might be relevant, is irrelevant by definition. However, there is no adequate morality without the recognition of relevancy, that is, of the irrelevance, but also of the relevance, of a distinction made or to be made. For also this coin has two sides in that a distinction must not be drawn because it is irrelevant and in that a distinction may, ought to or even must be drawn because it is relevant. Those who argue that a distinction is discriminatory only because it is to their disadvantage, even regardless of their own behavior, are unmoored from the relevant foundation.
The desperate (or cynically 'pragmatic') give up and say, "Let the world stew in its own bloody juices" or words to that effect. First of all, they forget, of course, that they do not have the power nor the authority to allow 'the world' to do or not to do something. But this mistake is forgivable. In this particular case they should also use the American rather than the British swearword: "Let the world stew in its own fucking juices." This, because the world's contemporary environmental problems are half caused by explodist copulation which knows of no sustainable population equilibrium, and therefore of no bounds. Also this mistake is forgivable, so far as the use of the one word instead of the other is concerned. (True, explicitly national and ideological conflicts, such as between two countries or denominations, are not environmental on the surface, but in practice they are not only caused by environmental conditions, they may also contribute to them.) Most importantly, those who speak of 'the world and its juices' confuse the world and the human species. There is even enough to object against when someone says that 'humanity should stew in its own juices', because not all human beings are equally responsible for the destruction or degradation of nature (among which 'the climate'), and for violent ideological conflicts (among which wars of religion). Some human people may not at all be responsible for the overconsumption on this planet (promoting the production of arms, for instance) or the overpopulation (providing for the cannon fodder, for instance). Some of them may be responsible for neither, at least to a degree much less than that of the average citizen's co-responsibility. However, to suggest that the world should stew in its juices is no doubt lamentably unforgivable, for the world is so incomparably much more than that one species that is causing or aggravating most, if not all, of today's problems on Earth. What the desperate (or egoistically 'pragmatic') want the whole of nature on Earth to stew in is the procreative and recreative juices of the members of one particular species that just cannot get enough: not enough children for themselves or their community (if not their gods or God), and not enough of the services and products of their consumerist society (if not their brands or Brand). This is the precise and unforgivable flaw in the utterance of those saying that 'the world should stew in is own bloody juices'. It is a sigh that will not even heave the untrefoiled grass, yet it tramples the flower of this suffering planet.
The color analogy which is used in particle physics makes implicit use of an ad hoc neutrality which fails to resemble the standard one between single-magnitude polarities, as also used in the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity. However, on closer analysis there appears to be one substrative factor which builds on the electric charge type of a neutrality centrally catenated with a negative and a positive polarity.
Stray biologists who have forgotten to stick to their last call the mammalian species to which they themselves belong "Homo sapiens", the wise human being or, worse, man. As far as this deviation from proper science is concerned, they behave as members of 'Homo stultus', the stupid human being or, worse, man.
Personhood is not only normatively superior to the theft or destruction of what people morally own but also to their oppression; and to all authoritarianism.
Neutralness or neutrality is not only normatively superior to the unfounded negative but also to the unfounded positive; that is, to all immoderation, especially extremism.
Inclusiveness or inclusivity is not only normatively superior to the exclusivity of aggrandizement but also to the exclusion of abnegation; that is, to all exclusivism.
Relevance is not only normatively superior to the irrelevance of arbitrary data but also to unjustified distinctions or discrimination; that is, to all irrelevantism.
Truth is not only normatively superior to the falsehood of lies and deceptive tales but also to promises, even threats, not made good; and to all supernaturalism.
