NARROW IS THE NEUTRAL MIDDLE PATH
 
"Wide is the gate, and broad the way to destruction":
this is what an ancient of days once said.
So is the gate of gates of those who exclude:
wide, wider and widest.
And so is the way of ways of the exclusive:
broad, broader and broadest.
Whereas the wide gate is easy to go thru,
and the broad way easy to follow,
the unique path of perfect neutralness
is extremely hard to tread.
For the gate of the Norm is strait and precise;
neither to the left nor to the right does it extend.
For the gate of the Norm is straight and upright;
neither to abnegation nor to aggrandizement does it yield.
The way to one-pointed concentration
always was and will remain infinitely narrow.
Also this the ancients have said before:
"Like the sharp edge of a razor is the Path" --
the Middle Path of perfect harmony and unity,
that is.

When the members of a community share a denominational 'disciplinary matrix', they have a conceptual apparatus in common with its own terminology, analogies and metaphors; they use then their own symbolic expressions; and, most importantly, they adhere then to their own system of norms and values. Whether their 'disciplinary matrix' has (already) become an undisputed paradigm or not, the members of such a community will feel the need to organize and expand their knowledge and to relate what they know or believe to others, both members and nonmembers.

A neutral-inclusivist community will need to organize and expand its knowledge in the Ananormative field; not for the sake of knowledge, for knowledge is not an ultimate or perfective value in itself, but in order to be able to cope better with practical and theoretical problems having to do with interpretation and implementation, and with socialization and organization, on the basis of the Ananorm. Where this knowledge is not yet available it requires research, and where it is available it requires the education of others and/or of ourselves (as the case may be).

Research in the field of denominationalism has historically and traditionally been the prerogative of theologs (and of specialists in demonology), altho their domain is merely that of theocentrist ideologies and forms of socialization. Even so-called 'public' universities start, or used to start, their curriculum with theology, or have made or made that course part of it. (We shall not speak here of so-called 'public' or 'interdenominational', educational institutions that start, or used to start, their lessons with theocentrist prayer.) Since our own ideology and organizations are, or will be, normistic, any research in the field of normistic denominationalism will be, or become, the task of 'normologs' (or whatever other name more adequate than theolog(ue) or theologian one wants to give these students or specialists). This will mean one of three things for (quasi-)public and non- or interdenominational private universities or schools:

1. theology and normology are ideological courses and do not properly belong to the curriculum; to the extent that they enhance scientific knowledge, they are part of subjects such as mythology, sociology and history; to the extent that they are philosophically illuminating or interesting, they are part of philosophy; and to the extent that they are of artistic significance, they are part of subjects such as literature and architecture;
2. theology and normology are mixtures of science, philosophy, arts and ideology; where, when and so long as they both exist, they shall (if taught at all) both be taught and the one shall not be given priority over the other, neither in a fundamental nor in a symbolic fashion;
3. the study of denominationalism, and perhaps of ideology in general, shall be open to anyone, shall not give priority to any ideology or ideological axiom in particular, and shall not in any exclusive way promote or perpetuate the symbolism of any ideology or type of ideology (assuming that such an approach is feasible at all).

From the point of view of the theory of denominational paradigms as expounded in division 6.3 of the Book of Instruments, a combined study of denominationalism by theologs and normologs together would be unthinkable. A theolog is in the words of such a theory an exponent of the 'old normal-denominational tradition'. A neutral-inclusivist normolog, on the other hand, is a disciplinary thinker who accepts a new model as 'er paradigm, and who will be but too eager to articulate it. Like a scientist 'e will be keenly interested in resolving the new paradigm's residual ambiguities and in finding solutions to problems the model does not deal with or has only drawn attention to as yet. A normolog must then be able to take the basics of 'er system of disciplinary thought for granted. If 'e had to constantly defend the first principles and fundamental concepts of the Norm against theologs, traditional moral philosophers or others, 'e would never come to furthering normology or Ananormative denominationalism itself. Instead, a normolog of the DNI will feel committed to 'open up new territory, display order (in the correct sense), and test long-accepted belief'. Theologs and others can only share 'er excitement of exploring this new denominational territory if they forswear, or earnestly promise to give up, their religion and supernaturalism in general. (Which includes, of course, the perpetuation of religious symbolism, the suggestion of the primacy of the divinely authoritative and the presumption that all denominationalism would have to be theodemonistic or supernaturalistic.)

So-called 'public' and 'nonreligious' or 'nonsectarian' private educational institutions have not only taught theology as a subject (whether or not in combination with demonology), they have often also looked after the education of clergymen (seldom or never that of clergypeople). Students of this nonscientific branch of education were, or still are, later to become the officials and priests of the temple organizations of the different religious brands. What applies to theologs very much applies to the education of these men (of whatever religous name) as well. It is not that a neutral-inclusive society or community will ever be in need of magic mediators between Mono and man, and it is not that such a society or community will ever be in need of a sacerdotal class of pneumatologists or pastoral workers tending flocks of human sheep, and yet also the Model will have to be read by and may have to be explained to people who are less knowledgeable or intelligent, but who are, perhaps, the more interested. When people have personal problems or worry about what is happening in the world, or when they would like to be given advice in matters of personal or suprapersonal concern, an Ananormative organization, too, could benefit from employing people with special qualifications; that is, not those of specialists in mediating between Mono and man (or sheep), but in mediating between the Norm and laypeople of whatever gender, age and level of education or intelligence. These practitioners or counselors who are not as such disciplinary thinkers themselves may be called "normicians". (Normician stands to norm as beautician stands to beaut(y), dietician to diet and technician to techn(ics).)

Whereas a normolog is in a sense the counterpart of a theolog, a normician is not to be thought of as the counterpart of a priest, or merely partially so. A normician is, for example, not someone who has to be officially invested with authority, or who has to be a member of an Ananormative organization. What counts is that 'e knows how to effectively help people on the basis of the principles of the DNI, and how to effectively communicate veridicalist and neutral-inclusivist views in a way which is appropriate to the receivers of the message -- a message which is not divine but normative. It is also normicians or people with similar capacities who will have to popularize the DNI, and to organize sociodenominational actions and activities.

In the event that old universities or schools have shed or will shed their religionist, sexualist and other exclusivist or supernaturalist leaves before the end of the term, there is a fair chance that new leaves and flowers will begin to grow in the next term, or have already developed and opened in the meantime. If so, then those old schools do, as it were, become new centers of research and education themselves. In that case they could also take care of the education of normologs and --if needed or desired-- of normicians, whether or not in addition to that of theologs and priests. However, should the old schools cling to traditions offending against the Ananorm, and should new interideological public or private schools prove to be ineffective or an illusion, the adherents of the DNI will have every reason to establish their own institutes.

Whether or not special DNI centers of research and education are necessary, and do or will exist, we must never forget that the concentration which is needed to learn and teach the principles of a normistic doctrine is, properly speaking, not the concentration of classrooms, offices and computers, let alone of bachelor cells in a monosexual monastery or convent. Every research institute, every school, every assembly center is a luxury, because the new Dharma can be taught and received in the shade of a tent or under a tree. It was done about two-and-a-half thousand years before and human nature has not or hardly changed since.