Yeah I think he might have been mixing up more than one spectrum. My higher level conclusion was that he says the purpose of the article in the abstract, and wasn’t seriously trying to think or talk about this other stuff. These introductory comments are not the ideas in the article he was trying to enable engagement with, which is part of why they’re hard to engage with. Author Goals and Errors
One issue that raises is: Why does he have an introduction at all instead of only writing about the stuff he cares about?