Someone downvoted you, so I think we should elaborate that further. I think you mean the right thing, but cited the sentence which only strangely says that OOP can be without objects (which alone doesn't mean that the focus on on "state transformations and encapsulated abstractions" is an OOP-thing). He wrote later on:

>But if you're focusing on state transformations and encapsulated abstractions, you're writing OOP.

So he is indeed saying that you can write OOP without objects, but also that the focus on "state transformations and encapsulated abstractions" is OOP.

I think that this is a really strange way to think about OOP.

edit: that was prior to an edit of the comment i respond to.