Mind, Perception, and Reality?

In an effort to adequately digest "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" I spent hours investigating terms, that were to me, unfamiliar, or unclear. Reference.com and the whole "www" failed to provide me with an understanding of "sirfiple units"(Phillips, p.7)

Frequently there are varied and often competing definitions for the same term in philosophical posturing - oops - that's positing right? DKJ noted on Q&A 2 that the meaning of MIR was dependent on the context.

In Johnson's "Make-Believe Metaphysics" there are references to Muller's O-D view and his O-D position. I was uncertain what "O-D" was representing in this work. After days of attempting to construct some sense of an acceptably-inclusive reality out of competing, exclusionary theories - as constructed by von Glasersfeld, Phillips, Johnson, et al., "Reality," as perceived by my mind, arrived at my best guess conclusion that O-D meant "Other-Dependent Reality". Though I struggled mightily, I was unable to find any reference to Herbert Muller, O-D or Other-Dependent Reality on the web to validate my supposition.

Therefore, I propose to subjectively support the possibility of the existence of an O-D as Other-Dependent Reality using DKJ's "Make-Believe Metaphysics" and Phillip's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". The theory of Other-Dependent Realism finds support in social constructivism especially in the views offered by feminist epistemologists Sandra Harding and Helen Longino. (Phillips p.7).

Other-Dependent Reality gains distinctive support as it is affirmed within our denial of solipsism, an obviously indefensible theory. Realism demands our necessarily constructing "Others" to bring some sense to our epistemological reality stories. Otherwise, we could be forced to wrestle with combining words like "object" and "dependent", creating the fantasy term "Object-Dependent Reality" which we would then morph into "O-D view" or "O-D position".

The accomplished communication of ideas and inquiries are the purpose of the philosopher, with Logic the philosopher's tool in this endeavor. The use of linguistic language suffers from often inherently vague and ambiguous terms and structure, therefore it is prone to frequent, understandable misinterpretation by a mind at some time, maybe all minds at one time, possibly some minds some times. Is not now The Time for our minds to construct a mutually understood and agreed upon perceptual toolkit, with which we might pursue the Reality Quest without wasting time (relatively speaking, of course) and Life-force - our's or an Other's, whether human, noumenal, or universally shared?

All puns aside, I suffer a continuous shortage of time. Therefore, I propose that all of philosophical ilk who insist on sharing their philosophical notions in an other-dependent real way, assemble a clear, concise, adequately defined list of terms used in common, and attach it to their work, where it will be available as an addendum to any other's work, in which their work appears. By providing their view, which to an other's mind, or other perceptional, interpreting, or organizing tool, might be potentially vague or ambiguous, we can eradicate philosophically-induced misunderstandings, confusion, as well as the over-use of reference.com and panic-spawned email to philosophy and logic professors.