The Realist Trap
Most philosophical positions, even those explicitly rejecting naive realism, preserve realism's architecture. They argue about which categories exist, which properties are fundamental, which descriptions capture the world correctly. The debate shifts from "matter vs mind" to "process vs substance" to "relations vs relata" but the game stays the same: reality has a structure, models succeed by matching it.
MDO doesn't offer a better answer to realist questions. It questions the dependencies that make those questions feel mandatory. The pairing of "model" and "reality" as concepts that explain each other, the assumption that ontological claims must bottom out in what exists independently of any perspective, the conviction that adequation means correspondence rather than operational success.
Models as Operations
Models are not beliefs about reality. They are operational systems deployed for navigating constraint-space toward goals. A model is adequate when it enables the operations it was built for, not when it mirrors observer-independent facts. This inverts the standard picture. Instead of: "reality has structure X, our model succeeds by capturing X," MDO proposes: "we have goals, constraints push back on our attempts, models are the operations we deploy to navigate that space." Ontologies emerge as model-parts, components of those operational systems, not descriptions of what's really there.
Operational Pressure vs Internal Coherence
Models face two kinds of evaluation. Internal coherence asks: do the model's parts fit together without contradiction? Operational pressure asks: does the model enable navigation of actual constraints toward actual goals?
C1 cognition (sensorimotor, operational) stays honest through constant feedback. The organism tries to catch prey, escape predators, find food. Failure means starvation or death. The constraints pushe back immediately, globally. Models that don't work get abandoned or the organism becomes extinct.
C2 cognition (linguistic, narrative) lacks that correction mechanism. Language enables coherent systems with no operational grounding. You can build elaborate internally consistent models that have zero adequation to navigating actual constraint-space. Worse, internal coherence feels like evidence of truth. The more pieces fit together, the more complete the system seems, the stronger the conviction it must be tracking reality.
This is dimensional collapse. Complex multidimensional adequation (empirical, logical, pragmatic, operational) collapses to single-axis evaluation (coherence, elegance, comprehensiveness). Once collapsed, the system becomes unfalsifiable. Every challenge gets integrated, every anomaly explained, the model grows to accommodate everything while touching nothing.
Constraints Push Back
MDO is not relativism. Models are not equally adequate. The difference is the ground of evaluation. Relativism says: no model is better than any other because there's no independent reality to judge against. MDO says: models face operational pressure from constraints and possibilities, adequation means enabling navigation of that space toward goals, not correspondence to observer-independent structure. What counts as constraint depends on what you're trying to do. Water is barrier or medium depending on goals and capabilities. Temperature is obstacle or resource depending on metabolism. The constraints are there, the pressure is there, but they only show up relative to operational systems attempting navigation.
Why This Is Hard
The difficulty isn't MDO's complexity. It's recognizing how deeply realist assumptions structure cognition before any explicit theorizing begins. When you ask "what is consciousness?" the question already assumes consciousness is a thing with a nature to be discovered. When you argue "physicalism vs dualism" you've already accepted that reality divides into fundamental kinds. When you claim "objective truth exists" or "objective truth is impossible" you're playing the same game, just picking different positions. MDO asks: what if the frame itself is the problem? What if "thing with nature" and "fundamental kinds" and "objective truth" are model-parts we deployed for goals, not discoveries about structure-independent-of-models? This doesn't mean anything goes. It means watching how models operate, what work they do, what happens when we mistake operational tools for metaphysical discoveries. It means staying vigilant exactly when frames feel complete, when systems seem to explain everything, when coherence produces certainty.
The difficulty isn't MDO's complexity. It's recognizing how deeply realist assumptions structure cognition before any explicit theorizing begins. When you ask "what is consciousness?" the question already assumes consciousness is a thing with a nature to be discovered. When you argue "physicalism vs dualism" you've already accepted that reality divides into fundamental kinds. When you claim "objective truth exists" or "objective truth is impossible" you're playing the same game, just picking different positions. MDO asks: what if the frame itself is the problem? What if "thing with nature" and "fundamental kinds" and "objective truth" are model-parts we deployed for goals, not discoveries about structure-independent-of-models? This doesn't mean anything goes. It means watching how models operate, what work they do, what happens when we mistake operational tools for metaphysical discoveries. It means staying vigilant exactly when frames feel complete, when systems seem to explain everything, when coherence produces certainty.
Dimensional Tension
Adequation is multidimensional. Empirical (does it navigate constraints?), logical (does it avoid contradiction?), pragmatic (does it enable the operations we need?), operational (does feedback confirm or falsify?). These dimensions often conflict. Empirical adequacy might demand abandoning logical elegance, operational success might require tolerating contradiction, pragmatic necessity might override empirical precision. Dimensional collapse reduces this tension to single-axis evaluation. Usually coherence or comprehensiveness or elegance. Once collapsed, you lose the capacity for global re-evaluation. Every challenge gets locally repaired within the existing frame, the system adapts around anomalies instead of rebuilding from scratch.
Adequation is multidimensional. Empirical (does it navigate constraints?), logical (does it avoid contradiction?), pragmatic (does it enable the operations we need?), operational (does feedback confirm or falsify?). These dimensions often conflict. Empirical adequacy might demand abandoning logical elegance, operational success might require tolerating contradiction, pragmatic necessity might override empirical precision. Dimensional collapse reduces this tension to single-axis evaluation. Usually coherence or comprehensiveness or elegance. Once collapsed, you lose the capacity for global re-evaluation. Every challenge gets locally repaired within the existing frame, the system adapts around anomalies instead of rebuilding from scratch.
The Stakes
Every model comes with costs. Ontological commitments constrain what counts as possible, intelligible, worth investigating. If you model reality as fundamentally particles, you struggle to make sense of emergence. If you model it as fundamentally mind, you struggle with intersubjective agreement. If you model it as fundamentally information, you lose contact with phenomenology. MDO doesn't eliminate these costs, it makes them explicit. Models are tools for goals, tools come with tradeoffs, the question is always adequation to purpose not correspondence to reality-independent-of-purpose.
Every model comes with costs. Ontological commitments constrain what counts as possible, intelligible, worth investigating. If you model reality as fundamentally particles, you struggle to make sense of emergence. If you model it as fundamentally mind, you struggle with intersubjective agreement. If you model it as fundamentally information, you lose contact with phenomenology. MDO doesn't eliminate these costs, it makes them explicit. Models are tools for goals, tools come with tradeoffs, the question is always adequation to purpose not correspondence to reality-independent-of-purpose.
This matters practically. Scientific models, political frameworks, technological systems, therapeutic approaches, they all carry implicit ontologies. Treat those ontologies as discoveries about reality and you get stuck, unable to rebuild when goals shift. Treat them as operations and you can ask: adequate for what? At what cost? What would it take to rebuild entirely? Nature's lesson is clear. Maps under operational pressure adapt or die. The question MDO asks is whether human cognition can learn that lesson without the constraint of death forcing it.