QUESTIONS   AND   ANSWERS

This document provides the answers, and sometimes the reason why no answer was given, to a selection of questions sent to TRINPsite by e-mail, by form or by means of a guestbook (which is not available anymore at present). The questions have been arranged in chronological order, starting with the most recent one. All answers are by M. Vincent van Mechelen. Questioners are not identified other than by one or two initials, unless they have made themselves known in public or have indicated that they do not mind. Obviously, private messages and personal details are not published here, unless of interest to others, while the person concerned has given 'er permission. For the sake of brevity some minor parts of questions and answers may have been deleted. Apart from these deletions no editing has been done. Any spelling mistake or other error or any idiosyncratic usage is the writer's.

FORM COMMENT by C.E. on 60.45.2:
    "Since there is merely a denumerably infinite number of names and definitions in human language, it is impossible to comprehend every set, given the 'existence' of nondenumerably infinite sets."
    Could you possibly give me a reference for a canonical expression of this sort of thinking? I am looking for somone who has written, essentially, that the the infinity of human language is smaller than the infinity of natural phenomena so that there necessarily is inaccessible knowledge.

ANSWER on 60.45.7:
    Unfortunately, i am not able to give you a reference for 'a canonical expression' of the sort of thinking you are quoting.
    You seem to be concerned with the question of whether there is 'inaccessible knowledge' of necessity. The expression inaccessible knowledge has an odd ring about it, but i assume you mean cognitively inaccessible factual, modal or normative conditions. This, however, demands a clear definition of what you mean by cognitively (in)accessible. Do not you agree that knowledge is never a completely sure thing, but always a matter of probability and plausibility, albeit, perhaps, great probability and great plausibility? Should you be looking for 100% certainty, i am afraid you may stop your enterprise and concede that all (sure) knowledge is inaccessible of necessity. But then knowledge loses its (practical) significance as it would not exist in daily life anymore.
    There is another, normative aspect to the issue you raise: when your concern is knowledge, you implicitly regard it as something valuable. Should you consider knowledge an ultimate and/or perfective value in itself, i must disappoint you, for such a position is untenable: if i tell you, without lying, how many blades of grass there are in my garden, if any, your knowledge will increase, but you will not be a better person for it, in whatever sense. Of course, knowledge is an important instrumental value, since it discloses to us what utterances are or would be true or false. But this is only the case, because truth is a value. Truth, however, does not require us to utter anything; it only requires that what we utter be true (and, together with relevance, that what we utter be relevant). You and i will not be better persons by uttering more truths but by uttering fewer falsehoods and preferably none at all! On the basis of this ultimate value of truth there is nothing to be concerned about. For if, and as long as, there are things we do not know and cannot know, we ought not to claim anything about them, something we will always be able to do.
    Those who put mere belief above knowledge will not share you concern whatsoever, but even those who, like myself, put knowledge above mere belief, especially religious and other supernaturalist belief, need not share your concern. For knowledge is only valuable as an instrument of truth not in that it may force us to say what is true, let alone everything that is true, but in that it may prevent us from saying what is false (and from making use of distinctions which are irrelevant).
    I hope that, in spite of the limited knowledge and other means i possess, this reply will be of some help to you.

FORM COMMENT by J.G. on 60.13.2:
    Tell me if you have read, and thoroughly understood "The Great Eygyptian Pyramid Text", and then tell me that you still believe what has been quoted in religious ceremonies through out the brief history of Judiasim, Islam and Christianity.

ANSWER on 60.13.3:
    Tell me if you have read and thoroughly understood the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity, and then tell me which great tome of texts suffers least from a lack of respect for persons and from extremism and from falsehood and irrelevance: the Bible, the Koran or the Model.

FORM COMMENT by T.S. on 60.04.6:
    Your language is highly technical and shows a high level of education. Perhaps, however, you should create a document that is tailored to the general public, or average man. Just a thought. Otherwise, I love your site. :)

ANSWER on 60.05.5:
    I am sorry to hear that you found the document(s) you read too technical.
    In actual fact, some documents (especially those with poems and short stories) are not technical at all, whereas other documents (especially those with the catenical or philosophical sections of the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity) certainly are. However, whether technical or not, in all documents new ideas representing an alternative worldview are either introduced or entertained. Such ideas often require a new emphasis on existing words, a new meaning of existing words and even the use of new words and the disuse of old ones. It is when confronted with this that some people, i fear, tend to confuse the 'technical' with the 'novel'. New verbal and nonverbal concepts and symbols necessarily accompany the introduction of a fundamentally new doctrine. You may consider this both an advantage and a disadvantage.
    I am not trying to disprove here that parts of the Model or of TRINPsite are, perhaps, too technical or too intellectual. I have to point out tho, that in one sense TRINPsite is not 'tailored to the general public'. For it is not tailored to the kind of people who like a new bottle (or, worse, a new label) so long as they can immediately identify, or at least classify, the (old) wine it contains. And it is not tailored to the kind of people who cannot find the time to read or to listen to, let alone to study, something new which is, or might be, of interest to themselves or to society at large in the long run, while these same people did and do find the time to endlessly familiarize and associate themselves with countless religious or other ancient activities and notions.
    'The general public' consists of people of very diverse intellectual and educational backgrounds. Each person deserves to be informed and inspired regardless of such a background, provided that 'e is willing to open 'er mind to it and to spend sufficient time and energy on it. Indeed, i will regret it very much if there are such persons who visit TRINPsite and do not stay because they cannot cope with the language, even tho they have tried their best. Yet, they have no reason to assume that the difficulties are there in order to be difficult. The difficulties are there in the first place because a totally new worldview has to be presented and defended in (near-)traditional terms to people who not seldom have a supernaturalist, exclusivist and/or extremist outlook on life which is at best vague, if not irrational, and at worst abominable, if not criminally wrong.
    Anyone who is genuinely interested (and has shown that interest, among other things, by reading further) may ask me to explain a particular argument in simpler language. But no-one can ask me to keep on saying things in 'simple' traditional words where new concepts, terms and even nonverbal symbols have been introduced with which to express oneself so much faster, so much more accurately and so much better; that is, better from a neutral-inclusive perspective, also in a moral sense.

E-MAIL QUESTIONS by J. E. on 59.41.6:
    I found your Web site during an Internet search for a definition of the concept of "Supreme Being" and read your article: http://www.trinp.org/MNI/BoI/6/2/4.HTM with great interest.
    I wish to discuss your article with a friend of mine who has a challenge with the concept of a "supreme being" but first want to know where I obtained the information from. Sure, I found it on the TRINP Web site ... but who or what is TRINP?
    One could find definitions of all manner of things and concepts on the Internet, and discuss them, but it is helpful to know the origins of those definitions and keep those origins in mind when critically assessing such material. Literally identical definitions of some idea, or concept, or thing, might be interpreted in differing lights depending on whether the publishers of such definitions were, for example: the Catholic Church, a political leader, a philosopher, a witch's coven member or practicing Satanist, a theoretical physicist or scientist of some other type, a group's conclusion or individual's idea ... and so on.
    I would be much obliged if you could enlighten me with regard to: What TRINP is - and how, where, and why did it originate?

ANSWER on 59.41.7:
    The Role of Normative Supremeness, the section you read, is part of the Book of Instruments, a mainly philosophical book which, in turn, is part of the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity, a major philosophical-denominational work. The doctrine introduced and defended in the Model is not theistic or atheistic in any conventional sense: it is, first and foremost, normistic, that is, based on the primacy of norms and values (rather than on that of gods and/or demons in the singular or plural). The values considered fundamental in the Model are truth, relevance/inclusivity, (catenical) neutrality and personhood. The Model was first published on paper 41 years after the Second World War. Its publication on the Internet started 9 years later and continues until the present day.
    The acronym TRINP for TRuth, Relevance, Inclusiveness, Neutrality and Personhood does not occur in the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity, but was used for the first time on InSite. InSite is the original name of the website which received its present name TRINPsite 7 years ago. You should visit the main document at http://www.trinp.org/MainDoc.htm and the main index page at http://www.trinp.org/index.htm and the pages linked to from there for more of this kind of information.
    From a normistic point of view a person cannot justifiably be interested in (a) supreme being/being supreme without being interested in norms and values above all. It is only theocentrists (theists and atheists alike) who fight about such a matter as the (non)existence of God/gods or (a) supreme being, while forgetting what it is that makes something better or worse in the first place, regardless of the (non)existence of any god, demon or supreme being. Therefore i strongly advise you to study the question of denominational primacy in the Model. The fourth division of the sixth chapter of the Book of Fundamentals (http://www.trinp.org/MNI/BoF/6/4.htm) deals with this issue in particular.
    As far as the concept of supreme being itself is concerned, it might also be worthwhile for you to read (parts of) the third chapter of the Book of Symbols, especially the section on 'the truth and relevancy of [the supreme being's] existence' (http://www.trinp.org/MNI/BoS/3/1/4.HTM). Note that truth here means truth and/or falsehood and that relevancy here means relevance and/or irrelevance.
    I hope i have answered your questions of how and where TRINP originated. The answer to your question of why it originated cannot be equally simple and concrete, i fear. May i venture to reply that the explicit recognition of the TRINP values was bound to come about in a world replete with supernaturalism, exclusivism and extremism?

FORM COMMENT by A. on 59.27.6:
    Unfortunately I have only had time for a short examination of this rather cumbersome web site and equally unfortunately my impression is that apart from the awkward communication style of parts of it, you are some 1000 years ahead of your time.

NO ANSWER is needed, not in a thousand years, as, fortunately, this comment does not contain a question.

E-MAIL QUESTIONS by G. on 59.25.1:
    I'm doing a bit of research into the term 'inclusivity' as used by a church in California. What is the earliest use of the term that you know of? Is there any particular person or institution who coined the term?

ANSWER on 59.25.3:
    You will have noticed that the term inclusivity does not (yet) occur in traditional paper dictionaries, whereas the term exclusivity has been recognized by everyone as a (near-)synonym of exclusiveness. It is no wonder, then, that purely on the basis of the analogy inclusivity had to and did come into existence somewhere sometime.
    The earliest use of the term inclusivity i know of is in the manuscripts and typescripts which preceded the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity by Vinsent Nandi (see www.trinp.org/MNI/MainDoc.htm) --if i am not mistaken in those parts which were written 25 to 30 years after the Second World War. The Model was published 41 years aSWW, so you may prefer that year as the 'official' one.
    There was a special reason for introducing the concept of inclusivity in the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity. It is a much wider notion than inclusive thought, for instance, covering not only the cognitive but also the affective and conative aspects of people's attitudes; not only thought but also action. With the stress put on the unity of thinking, feeling and acting a clear distinction between the inclusive and the exclusive attitude emerged; between exclusion and exclusivity on the one hand and inclusion and inclusivity on the other. Inclusivity then becomes the complete opposite of exclusivist acts, practices and teachings, inclusive of those created, perpetuated and/or promoted by the Bible and the Koran.
    Should you be interested in the substance too, you are especially advised to read the first two chapters of the second Model book, the Book of Fundamentals. (Address: www.trinp.org/MNI/BoF.htm.) It is in the very first section of this book where --apart from the title of the Model-- the term inclusivity appears for the first time.

E-MAIL QUESTION by A. G. on 58.52.1:
    I'm looking for a translation of the Flemish play Elckerlyc. Specifically, I would like to know if the debate on priesthood between Knowledge and Five Wits that we have in the probable translation Everyman is similar in the Flemish, if it even exists in Elckerlyc, and how it actually translates. Could you email me just the preisthood debate or any insight you might have about it?

ANSWER on 58.52.2:
    I am sorry to inform you that i do not have, nor know of, any literal translation of the Middle Dutch play Elckerlijc (=Elckerlyc). As i speak Dutch myself, i have not been looking for one.
    However, i think i can answer your question whether the debate on priesthood between Knowledge and Five Wits in the Middle Dutch (or 'Flemish') Elckerlijc is similar to the English Everyman, for it certainly is. 'Similar' must, then, be understood in the same way as for the rest of the play. It definitely is not a completely literal translation, if only because it was necessary to change words or the order of words for the respective rime schemes in Dutch and English.
    I have a copy of Elckerlijc and Everyman printed together on the left and right pages. In this copy the debate on priesthood runs in Everyman from line 706 ("Everyman, harken what I say:") to line 770 ("Which hath made true satisfaction."), while in Elckerlijc it runs from line 660 to line 725: 65 lines in both versions. The greatest deviation seems to be in the last three lines, where Vijf Sinnen says in Elckerlijc:
"We are their [=the priests'] sheep and they our shepherds, /
  By whom all of us are protected, /
  Let's not talk about it anymore."
Other deviations are much smaller or, i believe, insignificant, as far as contents are concerned.

FORM QUESTION by K. on 58.52.1:
    Please justify the concept of ugliness throuhg the extemation of traditionalist thank u as u do.

NO ANSWER given, which is, perhaps, justifiable but most regrettable.

FORM COMMENT by ? on 58.50.6:
   Comments = what is the difference between respectable and respecful?
   Sender =

NO ANSWER given, for i am still waiting in respectful silence for this undoubtedly respectable person to contact me again and let me know 'er address.

FORM COMMENT by S. on 58.35.7:
    I was lucky enough to come across the TRINPsite.
Thank you!

ANSWER unknown (lost?). It could have been: Now, i am lucky enough to hear of your gratefulness!

E-MAIL QUESTION by A. M. on 58.24.3:
    If you have time could you please offer advise to me, please? I live in the U.S.A. and I have no one to discuss the Model of Neutral Inclusivity with.
    I am indifferent to everything on, in and around this planet. Any suggestions to what a person could do with his life if he possessed knowledge of what is truth and what is not truth?

ANSWER on 58.25.4:
    When you write that you are 'indifferent to everything on, in and around this planet' i do not know how to interpret this. It could mean 'not interested in' and 'not committed to anything', which i would regret. Yet, you continue with wondering what life would be like if you 'possessed knowledge of what is truth and what is not truth'. From this i take it that you recognize at least truth as something good in itself.
    As far as truth is concerned, this is what you should do with your life: do not lie and do not break a promise (or even a threat), neither to others nor to yourself. You will respect truth by not lying about a cookie you may have stolen from a biscuit tin, but in general you respect truth by not claiming or saying anything for which you have no evidence or logical proof. Therefore you should resist all forms of supernaturalism, whether of the institutionalized sort (as in a church or mosque) or not.
    However, truth is only one value among several. And the recognition of truth in isolation will merely make you a victim of irrelevantism. There is so much more to life! Visit TRINPsite (www.trinp.org) and see for yourself what the acronym TRINP stands for. It stands for no fewer than five values (four ultimate ones): TRuth, Relevance, Inclusiveness, Neutrality and Personhood.
    Should you not want to or not be able to read the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity from beginning to end, you could start with the parts of the Model linked to from the respective Value documents (www.trinp.org/Valu/Tru.htm for truth, etc). Try to understand at least these parts of the Model and you will never need to ask me or anyone else anymore what a person could do with 'er life. You will only have to ask yourself what you could do in your particular circumstances with your particular capacities to improve yourself and/or the world of which you are part, if not in the short then in the long term, alone or with others.
    May TRINPsite inform and inspire you.

GUESTBOOK QUESTIONS by Mike on 58.14.7:
    Isn't this yet another attempt(well-meaning)at consolidating belief systems in their most high structured truths and relevances???? Isn't the path of not knowing the real discipline? And anything consolidated and structured to a degree faulty in relevance???

ANSWER on 58.15.3:
    I will try to answer your three questions.
    TRINPsite is mainly based on the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity and this work might be called "an attempt at consolidating a belief system", as you put it. It is also --to use your words again-- very 'structured'. I do not know how to interpret your phrase 'systems in their most high structured truths and relevances', and therefore i must forgo dealing with this part of your first question.
    As to your second question: neither the path of knowing nor the path of not knowing is the real discipline. The real discipline lies in solely claiming what is justified belief and not claiming what you cannot or do not know. Knowledge nor ignorance is an ultimate value in itself, but truth is. You do not only respect the truth by not telling falsehoods but also by not affirming or denying anything you do not know. This is precisely why supernaturalist claims, like ordinary lies, are objectionable. But do not believe and say that we do not and cannot know anything at all, for then it would not even have made sense for you to ask your questions and for me to write this reply. The Book of Instruments of the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity is not only very clear about the value and interpretation of truth but also about the value and interpretation of relevance. Unlike truth, relevance is a relational notion: something is not (ir)relevant in some absolute sense but always with regard to a certain goal.
    So, when you ask me if a consolidated and structured system is not faulty in relevance to a degree, i cannot answer your question in general, since it depends on the (your?my?) objectives. Yet, as far as TRINPsite and the Model are concerned, i will be so bold as to answer you. The Model does certainly and most willingly 'consolidate' relevance and truth and a limited number of other values in a very structured way. It is precisely because of its enforcement and reinforcement of relevance as a value that it would be absurd to accuse it of being faulty in relevance, especially where and when it surpasses any specific focus of relevancy. You must realize that you yourself in your formulation of your question implicitly treat relevance as a value too. And, indeed, it is: the second of the TRINP values.
    Should i not have answered your questions exactly and completely (which, i fear, i have not), i hope i have at least made it worthwhile for you to pose them.

FORM QUESTION by ? on 57.41.6:
   Comments = I would like some good phrases or words to write in composition.
   Sender =

NO ANSWER given, as the wishful thinker did not leave 'er (name and) address.

FORM COMMENT by ? on 57.40.6:
   Comments = This site sucks
   Sender =

NO ANSWER given, but this visitor certainly deserves to be praised for the crystal clearness of the aural effects in 'er utterance. Could it be that 'e consulted my Vocabulary of Alliteration?

FORM COMMENT by ? on 57.23.1:
   Comments = At last I found a place were I can breath pure air.
   Sender =

NO ANSWER given, as the giver of this unquestionably nice comment wished to remain anonymous.

FORM QUESTION by T. on 57.05.5:
    The writer of this Book of Instruments is a genius. It's the most commonsense collection of thoughts I have read in a long time. That it is written in such plain English is also refreshing. Why don't you get this work published? It would never be accepted without being published first.

ANSWER on 57.05.5:
    With regard to your question i must inform you that the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity (consisting of three Books) was already published on paper more than 15 years ago. (See www.trinp.org/MNI/MainDoc.htm for further details.)
    I don't know how much you've read of the Model, but one of the last ones you would expect to accept this denominational-philosophical work is an established publisher from an era dominated by religion and some wishy-washy humanism or anemic atheism on the fringe. Therefore, it was never offered to such a publisher. Instead, it was first published on paper privately and since that drew hardly any attention, it was republished and will continue to be republished on the Internet, where it is now drawing an ever-increasing number of visitors and, presumably, readers.
    You seem to suggest that the acceptance of a book depends on its publication in print, and in the short run and from a traditional point of view you may be right. However, in the long run such a publication does not prove anything in itself. The Model is a work of reason and in the realm of reason it is not the authority of a publisher, nor of a writer, that counts, but the long-term validity of arguments. And i venture to believe that eventually new sense will prevail over old nonsense, especially when i'm getting encouraging comments like yours.

E-MAIL QUESTION by P. H. on 57.02.1:
    What is your goal ????

ANSWER on 57.02.3:
    TRINP: Truth, Relevance, Inclusiveness, (Catenical) Neutrality and Personhood.
    See TRINPsite.

E-MAIL QUESTION by T. on 56.47.6:
    I was suprised to find your website.
    I was baffled by the structure you have chosen.
    I was amazed that I understood any of it and agreed with some of it.
    Ok, how about a text file - say 10 or 50 pages - that summarizes the key elements of your thought so that I can read it while propped up in bed. This is a wager that your material makes enough sense to keep me (or another site visitor) awake, in a brain-state to allow transmission of your meme. If you lose, I fall asleep. If you win, the Dutch get to export something other than cheese in red wax.

ANSWER lost during a change of computers or suchlike. (It must have been the cheese or the wax.) Anyhow, T., if and when i win, there'll be no Dutch citizen exporting anything to you; there'll be a native of this world impressing it on you.