I'm sure our definitions differ. For comparison, here is a quote from a translation of Guattari's "Chaosmosis" (1992) which I would say is unclear: "The ontolog

I'm sure our definitions differ. For comparison, here is a quote from a translation of Guattari's "Chaosmosis" (1992) which I would say is unclear: "The ontological relativity advocated here is inseparable from an enunciative relativity. Knowledge of a Universe (in an astrophysical or axiological sense) is only possible through the mediation of autopoietic machines. A zone of self-belonging needs to exist somewhere for the coming into cognitive existence of any being or any modality of being." That is the kind of language which made many European intellectuals in the later half of the 20th century notorious. The problem is not just an unusual vocabulary and elaborate sentence structure, but fundamental incoherence and haphazard use of undefined terms. I don't believe the linked article under discussion is really in the same category.