This looks very interesting, but concise to the point of near opacity. I wish the author would talk about the notion of 'levels of abstraction' more concretely, and give the passive voice and "quotation marks" a rest, because there's otherwise some really good thinking here.
Response to Matt's Comment:I believe, if you look at my blog post on 'Critical Thinking in terms of General Semantics and The Structural Differential' on 1/26/11 and click the link 'The Structural Differential' it may help to better understand the 'levels of abstraction' referred to here. You can reach my blod 'Bodidharma's Musings' from DKJ's Phlog under 'Student Bloggers (Philosophy of Teaching & Learning)'
Thanks. I do understand those concepts. My comment was a general critique of the sort of writing that obscures otherwise useful ideas with gratuitous jargon and poor style, so that the wrong person (reader instead of writer) does the work, and the likely audience (those who already know what he's talking about, or are willing to plow through a dozen links to figure it out) is tiny. Such a procedure hardly honors the importance of the thinking.