By ``theory" is meant a framework for reasoning and calculating -- hence retrodicting and predicting -- a specified range of phenomena. For example, electronics is a theory about synthesizing and analyzing electronic circuits. A theory is ``final" if any other theory of the same phenomena may be interpreted in its terms. An example of a final theory is statistical thermodynamics (cf. Richard C. Tolman) which interprets classical phenomenological thermodynamics. Every theory is expressed in its own language, including selected words (``ontology") and general sentences (``hypotheses") that are the basis for inferences from sentences that describe particular circumstances (initial and boundary conditions). The ontology of microlectics includes the terms 'everyday world', 'mind', 'mental model', 'microlect', 'behavior', 'expression', 'operating structure', and 'resonance'. The first general hypothesis is that minds are operating structures in the everyday world with many parts called mental models. The second general hypothesis is that mental models are expressed either covertly or overtly. The set of expressions of a mental model is its microlect. The third general hypothesis is that expressions of a mental model roughly conform to recognizable patterns. A mental model of the recognizable patterns of a microlect may be expressed in a microlect. That is the theory of the microlect. For example, There exists a context-free grammar of Turkish; there exists a computer program to describe human motion sequences of dance; there exists an ontology to provide ``a structured vocabulary of concepts for the description of protocols in bio-medical domains." The term 'microlect' shall refer either to the set of expressions for a mental model, or a theory of it. For example, Chomsky's transformational grammar includes a theory of English. There are microlects for mental models of the sport, basketball; of automobiles; of international relations; and of quantum fields. These microlects are verbal or mathematical. The telling of one's life story is an expression of a mental model of self, including actions and beliefs. The words of the corresponding microlect constitute what Richard Rorty calls the person's ``final vocabulary." Other kinds of behavior may express mental models. For example, a choreographer's idiosyncratic mental model of dance is expressed by particular patterns of bodily motion. There are also diagrammatic and gestural microlects. In particular, there is a diagrammatic microlect for microlectics. Covert expressions of a mental model include inner speech and inner visualization, i.e., conscious thought. Daniel Kahnemann's System 1 corresponds to the behnd-the-scenes mental models that are expressed by System 2, deliberative conscious thought. Minds are operating structures. There is a diagrammatic microlect for operating structure. An operating structure may be, and often is, dependent on ``lower-level" operating structure. In that sense, an operating structure may be ``virtual" over an ``underlying" structure. Thus, mind may be a virtual operating structure at the apex of a tower of virtuality that is grounded in fundamental physics. Or not. There is no law against circular virtuality (cf., J. A. Wheeler). The fourth general hypothesis is that operating structures respond more or less, sometimes much more or less, to patterns in the everyday world. In microlectics it is said that an operating structure 'resonates' if its response is consistently large for a pattern. This is pattern recognition. What is a question? A question expresses absence of resonance. Any theory of mind includes a mental model expressed in a microlect. For example, in no particular order, G. Tononi, B. Baars, E. B. Baum, J. C. Eccles, A. Damasio, W. H. Calvin, G. M. Edelman, P. Carruthers, H. P. Stapp, S. Watzl, and G. Fauconnier have proposed more or less technical mental models of mind expressed in corresponding microlects, many but not all of which are diagrammatic or mathematical. Because no two distinct minds can recognize exactly the same patterns in the everyday world, each mind has a ``subjective viewpoint." As a consequence, microlectics concludes that the problem of incommensurability (N. J. Heidlebaugh) is unsolvable. The best would be for everyone to enlarge greatly their fund of mental models, especially mutually inconsistent ones. That is what educators should relentlessly strive to imbue in students.