The Model of Neutral-Inclusivity is a work or collection of books of a philosophical and denominational nature with close connections to science and the arts. Denominational is, then, to be understood as referring to the name ('denomination') a person or group use to describe themselves when asked for their philosoophy of life, lifestance or worldview. This name may be that of a particular religion, it may be agnosticism (or agnostic), or — as in the case of the Model — it may be neutral-inclusivism, a normistic worldview, that is, one in which norms and values have primacy over god(s) and demon(s). What is denominational is by definition also 'ideological' in a nonevaluative sense: 'ideology' may be bad, good, both or neither. Ideology is a wider concept than denominationalism, for an ideology may be political instead of denominational. The Model is a philosophical-ideological work, but as it is comprehensive instead of political in some specific sense, it is preferable to call it "a philosophical-denominational work".

In the first book of the Model, the Book of Instruments, four fields of disciplinary thought are distinguished: science, literature, philosophy and ideology. Of these four fields many a Web directory puts only SCIENCE on the top level. Literature is put under ARTS, another top-level category, but as literature is indeed part of the arts, this is correct. Philosophy is made a subcategory of SOCIETY, while ideology is nowhere to be found back as such at this level. Manifestations of denominational ideology and culture are put under the heading of 'Religion and Spirituality' or, even worse, 'Religion'. Elsewhere RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY may be given a top-level position.

The vaguely defined --if defined at all-- SOCIETY is a class with miscellaneous items such as 'Issues', 'People', 'Language and Linguistics' and 'Social Sciences'. (INDIVIDUALS, a top-level category not recognized as counterpart of SOCIETY, is taken care of by 'People' in the shape of, for example, 'Historical Personages' and 'Personal Homepages'.) Looking down on it from the top, this classification makes, of course, little or no sense, for science and the arts are also parts of 'society' just as language and religion (while linguistics is a branch of science or of science and philosophy). Nevertheless, if a choice has to be made between SCIENCE, ARTS and SOCIETY, there can be no strong objection against listing the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity somewhere under SOCIETY. After all, the Model is as much the 'work' of society as it is the work of one individual, and it is not primarily of a scientific or literary nature.

When considering where the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity may be put within the Philosophy subcategory of SOCIETY, it should be kept in mind that the Model covers numerous traditional fields of philosophy, such as ethics, logic(s), analytic philosophy, social philosophy, philosophy of religion, philosophy of law and esthetics. Since the Model is not confined to one department of philosophy, it seems most appropriate to put it under a general heading. Should there be no such 'General' subcategory, then the only option is to list the whole Model, its books or smaller parts of it under subcategories such as ethics and logics separately.

As far as society or culture and ideology are concerned, the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity is to be classified as a denominational work and to be put under 'Denominationalism'. No other place will be suitable, provided that the label itself need not be DENOMINATIONALISM per se. It could be WORLDVIEWS or CULTURE AND LIFESTANCE, to name but two alternatives. Yet, the label must definitely be one without any religious, or for that matter antireligious, bias. RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY will, therefore, clearly not do. If religion is a form of spirituality, then the label is as nonsensical and prejudiced as a label of the type HUMAN BEINGS AND MEN; if religion is not a form of spirituality, then nonreligious worldviews or lifestances are discriminated against by not mentioning them at all. (It cannot be more impossible to call religion "a form of spirituality" than to call irreligion "a form of spirituality".)

Given that the Web directory has a nondiscriminatory, nonbiased, just label for DENOMINATIONALISM, one may expect at least some further subdivision for the different 'denominations' in this world, in which all the religious, nonreligious and even antireligious beliefs are supposed to be listed. Where this is indeed the case one item should be NEUTRAL-INCLUSIVISM (or DNI or a description containing a reference to the TRINP values) and under this one item the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity will then find its appropriate place. This place is then not (necessarily) different from the places major religious works or 'sacred books' have under their respective, own denominational headings.

It stands to reason that NEUTRAL-INCLUSIVISM need not be a direct subcategory of DENOMINATIONALISM: there may first be a further subdivision into religious and nonreligious, supernaturalistic and veridicalistic (that is, 'naturalistic') or theocentristic and normistic forms of denominationalism, for instance. But it stands to reason as well that the writer and better readers of the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity will not accept that this work is classified in a Web directory in a way which is erroneous or even offensive because of a religious, supernaturalist or antinormist bias.

M. Vincent van Mechelen, 58.SMY

©MVVM, 58-70 ASWW

Model of Neutral-Inclusivity