The ideological approach of this Model is predominantly instrumentalistic in the Book of Instruments, predominantly fundamentalistic in the Book of Fundamentals and predominantly symbolistic in the Book of Symbols.

By instrumentalism we then understand the doctrine that certain ideas and theories are instruments of action --also of further theorizing-- and that their usefulness determines their truth, or their theoretical value. The Model of Neutral-Inclusivity is by no means instrumentalistic in that it would consider true what would be ultimately useful or satisfying to believe: it does not espouse such a 'pragmatic' theory of truth. It is only instrumentalistic with respect to the instruments which are useful to arrive at the ideological foundation laid in the Book of Fundamentals. These instruments are concepts and theories which do not have to be entirely adequate and true, or the sole feasible ones. What is important is that they are (believed to be) the most helpful instruments to explain the source and scope of the theories and objectives put forward in the Book of Fundamentals. Obviously, none of the instrumental theories or ideas ought to be false in the sense of being contrary to established fact, or of being incoherent, or more incoherent (and implausible) than any alternative theory or idea. The Book of Fundamentals determines our ultimate denominational objectives, and whatever reasonable theoretical means are best to attain these have been adopted in the Book of Instruments, or may be adopted instead. The theories and ideas in that book have no independent value. The importance of the Book of Instruments is therefore mostly relative in that there may be other, better or more correct means to arrive at the Model's central destination.

By fundamentalism (in a normistic sense) we shall understand the doctrine that certain theories and ideas must be interpreted literally and that they are true or correct and/or useful by themselves. The Model of Neutral-Inclusivity is fundamentalistic with regard to the catenical interpretation of nonpropositional reality and the veridicalistic interpretation of the principle of truth, and with regard to the norm of neutrality and the norm of inclusivity. The catenical theory may be looked at in an instrumentalistic way tho insofar as a different theoretical approach would not affect the substance of neutralism or neutral-inclusivism. This substance is to be found in the Book of Fundamentals, the heart of the Model. It is in this book that our body of disciplinary thought is established as a paradigm or paradigm-to-be. The Book of Fundamentals supplies the minimum constituents without which the DNI would not be a neutral-inclusivistic denominational doctrine and part of the Ananorm.

By symbolism we shall understand the use of symbols, particularly when expressing the invisible or intangible by means of visible or tangible or different linguistic representations. From the theoretical denominational point of view these symbols are neither instrumental nor fundamental to the development of the doctrine, however great their import may be from the artistic or practical standpoint. The Model is symbolistic with regard to the generation and use of symbols, precisely because it does not consider symbols instrumentally necessary or fundamental. Whereas in religious, theocentrist ideologies 'fundamentalism' is characterized by a strict and obligatory, unrelenting adherence to, and literal interpretation of, denominational systems of symbols --as non-supernaturalists would call it--, in the DNI fundamentalism stands for what is fundamental to the doctrine as distinct from what is ('merely') symbolic. Such does not mean that neutral-inclusivistic fundamentalism would be antisymbolic or literalistic: the symbolism of the DNI itself could then never have come into being. Our doctrine as a whole is presentationally inclusive. That is, it allows the expression of neutral-inclusive thoughts and feelings thru symbols, but it does not command so. While the present book will supply some generative principles of the DNI's symbolism, such symbolism is not required for the individual adherent to be able to live under the neutral-inclusive Norm. Yet, it is required for the doctrine itself in order to be, and to function as, a denominational doctrine.

It was argued in section 2.2.1 of the Book of Fundamentals that both literal communication and communication by means of nonliteral or nonlinguistic symbols should be treated in their own right. But it was also argued there that denominational symbols can only acquire a proper meaning in combination with a more or less literal system of communication. That is why symbolism with respect to the DNI or the Ananorm is not a choice for Ananormative symbols instead of what is fundamental to the doctrine but in addition to what is fundamental to it.

When denominational practises are not only symbolic (or supernaturalistic) but also formalized, people speak of "rituals" and "ritual symbolism". This formalization is a matter of concern, for in the ritual symbolism of religious ideologies processes of disintegration and degeneration have not been uncommon in which the nonsymbolic and the symbolic components of the denominational system in question developed into two separate systems. The reason for this was that the ritual and other symbols did not reflect the same values as those of the nonsymbolic original anymore. The adherents of such ideologies did thus in the course of history become more and more sidetracked into a completely meaningless observance of a dotty and dusty ritualism formulated by the priests and deviating from what the author(s) of the doctrine or its early teacher(s) taught. The influence of those priests and the caste, religious organization or temple society they belonged to led to decay several times. New denominational doctrines were developed in the past for the sole purpose of restoring the original norms and values with which an antiquated ritualism and a fusty religious hierarchy had lost all contact.

There is no or little danger that the symbols to be presented in this book will be similarly responsible for an alienation from the fundamental values of neutral and inclusive thought. There would be such a risk in the use of ritual symbols, if they were part of obligatory ceremonial acts. Those giving themselves up to the formalized observance of such rituals would then probably start losing sight of the essentials of the weltanschauung. In the DNI such obligatory ritualism is not only nonexistent, in this veridicalistic doctrine rituals or other forms of symbolism cannot be substituted for fundamental thought and action or nonaction in the first place.

Just as activating neutralism must include everything of nonactivating neutralism but not (necessarily) the other way round, so symbolistic neutralism must include everything of fundamentalistic neutralism altho not (necessarily) the other way round. When considering both the distinction between fundamentalistic and symbolistic neutralism, and between nonactivating and activating neutralism, the activating-symbolistic variant is clearly the 'strongest' or most far-reaching one of the DNI, whereas the nonactivating-fundamentalistic variant is the 'weakest' or least exacting one. The activating-fundamentalistic and nonactivating-symbolistic variants lie somewhere in between.