THE   SYMBOL   OF   SYMBOLS
 
The highest symbol,
the symbol of symbols,
of the neutral-inclusive Norm
is the all-neutral supreme being.

No-one shall honor or dishonor
those who recognize the symbol of symbols,
and no-one shall dishonor or honor
those who do not recognize the symbol of symbols.

The psychological and sociological need of a universal, cosmic frame of reference can be satisfied in a direct, 'presentative', way or in an indirect, 'representative' or symbolic, way. A presentative system relates things and events directly to one another and to certain combinations of existing or fictitious matters as they are or are believed to be in themselves. In a representative system things are not so much important for what they are (believed to be), but for what they represent. In such a system things and events are related to one or more symbols which reflect the same ideas and values as the presentative system. Because the underlying ideas and values are the same, a representative system is not irrational and counterargumentative but rather nonrational and nonargumentative. The addition of symbolic entities or different forms of symbolism to the fundamental frame of reference may not satisfy the intellectual component of the human need of a (veridicalist) worldview in the way direct presentation does, it will provide a basis for the satisfaction of human feelings without having to yield to metaphysical or theoretical put-offs and exclusivist inconsistences.

The satisfaction of the need of a descriptive or factual-modal, presentative frame of reference is what could be called "the informative function of denominationalism" (or "of ideology" in general); the satisfaction of the need of a normative, presentative system is then its 'imperative function'; and the satisfaction of the need of a symbolic, representative system, its 'emotive function'. (These functions have already been discussed in I.6.1.2.) To deny the need and significance of the direct presentation of not only factual and modal conditions but also of norms, would be irrational and testify to abnegational literalism or aggrandizemental symbolic exclusivism. On the other hand, it would testify as much to presentational exism if the need and significance of the re-presentation of factual, modal and normative conditions thru symbols were denied. In our case this is the need not only of the presentation of neutral-inclusivity as set out in the Book of Fundamentals but also the need of the representation of neutral-inclusivity.

If a human denominational doctrine or ideology is devoid of any meaningful symbolism and confines itself to what is considered fundamental or rational, it is human individuals who are bound to become themselves the idolized symbols of such a denominational doctrine or ideology. Those human individuals may be, for example, the originator of the doctrine in question, the founder(s) of the first or largest organization of that doctrine or a latter-day adherent who is believed or claimed to have been much more intelligent, artistic or virtuous than the average one. Because of the lack of nonpersonal or person-neutral symbols an ideology without a symbol-generating faculty, but with a considerable number of adherents nevertheless, will tend to degenerate more and more into a cult of individual exclusivism. Even an egalitarian doctrine can thus give rise to the idolization, if not deification, of a human being. It is not hard to find examples of ideologies, poor in meaningful symbols, of which the exponents have named one building or prize after the other for a particular person or member of a small, exclusive group of persons --or should we say "men"? Such onomastic exclusivism proves that the need of symbols (also nonlinguistic ones) does exist, and that our own doctrine must be capable of providing the deductive, heuristic, creative and other means to satisfy this need in an inclusivist manner.