I believe that you are correct. The essence of his "intent" is probably not much different than what I'm getting at. I think what bothers me is that there is such an emphasis on precision of language and precision of "history of vocabulary" that the idea gets lost in an effort to differentiate.

It's highly likely I'm being too harsh on him. I probably have baggage from having read a lot of this kind of stuff and having it leave me less than satisfied. My apologies.

Perhaps what bothers me is that he spends a lot of time tearing down and differentiating from others, and less time telling us what he actually does believes in.