3.3.1 |
THE MORPHEMES OF NEUTRALISM |
3.3.1.1
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 neutralistic 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 neutralistic
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||nāic (with
āic 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:
- 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;
- 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;
- 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.