THE PRINCIPLE OF CATENATED NEUTRALITY
 
The belief that high and positive matters
demand a high or positive evaluation
because of their highness or positivity
is a result of confusing the positivities
of highness catenas of entirely different types.

The belief that negatory matters
correspond to negative ones
and demand a low or negative evaluation
because of their negatoriness
is a result of confusing negatoriness and negativity.

These beliefs lead to nonsensical or false notions,
incompatible with the unique status of neutrality
as a catenated limit-element,
incompatible with the order of nature, and
incompatible with realism and inclusivism.

Surpassing these beliefs is the principle
that neutral matters are normatively superior,
that they demand the highest evaluation, and
that positive matters must be treated as negative ones
since they are equally unneutral.

Where positivity is needed to compensate
for negative polarity, and
where negativity is needed to compensate
for positive polarity,
the world is fully alive with a quest
for harmony and equality.
If the principle underlying this quest
is understood in such a way,
that a certain kind of polarity
is relevant to neutral ends,
it is called "the ananorm".

Language is needed not only to make communication possible and easier, but also to render the information to be conveyed more accurate. It is by means of new morphemes and expressions that a world of opportunities can be opened up which otherwise would remain enveloped in a haze of circumlocutions which were not intended. The confusion of negatory terms with negativity is but one example. Since traditional language has not recognized the special import of neutrality, it has forced people to use circumlocutory and/or negatory phrases like neither nor and indifference to express neutralness. Because of their negatory structure, and in alliance with modulus-catenary derivations, these phrases and neutrality itself have subsequently been associated with negativeness. It is at the same time this hereditary taint of traditional language which makes it seem more 'positive' to keep adhering to the extremist or lesser unneutralist ideologies underlying it. The old, established linguistic system often stimulates the living-on of partial conceptions, merely because people can express themselves in an easier and linguistically '(more) normal' way by sticking to them.

Like in science, the introduction of a new and viable, denominational paradigm or doctrine is always accompanied by a novel conceptual apparatus and symbolism. This conceptual apparatus may, linguistically speaking, contain old words which keep their meanings individually but whose combination yields a new meaning, and also new words with new meanings (which always, somehow, have to be explained in traditional terms.) It is solely as a last resort that a scientist or denominationalist should introduce neologisms to escape the confinement of traditional or everyday language, because many of 'er readers and listeners are not always capable of coping with information in a language which deviates too much from a way of speaking which is familiar to them. On the other hand, the great asset of neologisms is that they are not tainted with inapposite connotations like those inherent in the negativity-negatoriness and highness-catenary misassociations. And another reason for the employment of such neologisms can be, both in science and denominationalism, that they enable the writer or speaker to cut a long, complicated story short. In denominationalism there is the additional, symbolic dimension of words and expressions, especially when they are not found in old paradigms.

When traditional scientists or technologists do need a new morpheme, that is, a new affix or an entire new word, they tend to look exclusively at the morphemes of their own language, or of the ancestral language(s) of one particular family of languages, even when presenting such a new morpheme as an element of a so-called 'International Scientific Vocabulary'. (The difference between international and interlinguistic seems already too difficult to cope with.) Of course, there is nothing scientific about such an ethnically, territorially and interlinguistically exclusivistic procedure devoid of any systematic substance in terms of lingual structure. We ourselves shall not pursue such a course for the few novel morphemes we need. Our selection shall not be founded in an exclusive interest in one particular family of languages. And while, perhaps, not scientific in any ideal, up-to-date sense, it shall not be as chaotic and structureless as the phraseology of many (or most?) traditional scientists. All new morphemes of the interlinguistic neutralist conceptual apparatus belong to one lingually systematic series of morphemes. Since the significance of this series as a whole is greatest from a symbolic point of view, the choice of the first three morphemes to be introduced here will not be explained and justified in this book. They are elements of the so-called n-a series of neutralist morphemes which will be presented in the Book of Symbols (in S.2.3). At this place we will confine ourselves to a brief explanation of their meanings.

The grammatical function(s) of the three new morphemes of neutralism will depend on the type of language concerned, but in this and related, inflectional languages they all serve as prefixes, while one of them is also the root of the adjective nanaic. The interlinguistic, standard pronunciation of the first one, ana-, is änä (with ä as in far), but for reasons having to do with the present language in particular, it may also be pronounced as äna_| (in which a_| is a schwa). The standard pronunciation of the second prefix, nan-, is nän. This prefix may also be pronounced as na_|n, and those who pronounce non- as nä_|n (in which ä_| is either ä or a schwa) may pronounce nan- as nan (with an ash as in map). The standard pronunciation of the third prefix, nana-, is nänä. Variants of this prefix are näna_|, nana_| and, if the emphasis is on the second syllable, na_|^|na. The pronunciation of nanaic is nä_|^|naic (with aic as in archaic, mosaic and prosaic). (The diacritics used here belong to an overlay system on the standard spelling of words in which each diacritic indicates for one alphabet letter a particular way of pronouncing this letter, while  ^|  indicates the beginning of a stressed syllable.)

The meanings assigned to the three morphemes above are:

1. ana: of or relating to superior neutrality (without being a form of neutrality); thus the ananorm means the norm of neutrality and ananormative means normative with respect to the norm of neutrality;
2. nan-: neutral and limiting the unneutral predicate(s) in question; thus nanhappiness, for instance, is the neutral limit-element between happiness and unhappiness; nan- need not denote a neutrality which is superior according to the ananorm;
3. nana-: of or relating to what is aimed at or furthers what is ananormatively superior; thus, nanaic (with nanaicity as noun) is neutral-directed in this particular sense; nanapolar (with nanapolarity as noun) does not refer to the nanaic primary thing but to the primary predicate involved; for nanaically compare archaically, mosaically and prosaically.