  Any system based on axioms is incomplete because the axioms cannot be proven
from the system, just believed. But one system can be less-incomplete than
other. Neutrosophy is less-incomplete than many other systems because it
contains them. But this does not mean that it is finished, and it can always be
improved. The comments presented here are an attempt to make Neutrosophy even
less-incomplete. I argue that less-incomplete ideas are more useful, since we
cannot perceive truth or falsity or indeterminacy independently of a context,
and are therefore relative. Absolute being and relative being are defined. Also
the "silly theorem problem" is posed, and its partial solution described. The
issues arising from the incompleteness of our contexts are presented. We also
note the relativity and dependance of logic to a context. We propose
"metacontextuality" as a paradigm for containing as many contexts as we can, in
order to be less-incomplete and discuss some possible consequences.
