His books "the blind spot - a course in logic" is despite its title a bad offender in mixing fairly outrageous claims and philosophical rants with technical sta

His books "the blind spot - a course in logic" is despite its title a bad offender in mixing fairly outrageous claims and philosophical rants with technical statements; and it is one of his most accessible texts. His writing is deliberately off-putting and hard to read; you actually need to already understand his ideas to understand his writing. His main contribution, through linear logic, are ways to separate 'elementary' operations of logic into simpler ones. Linear logic decomposes the classical "and" and "or" into multiplicative and additive ones, and some modalities. This gives a more precise encoding of operations that can directly link logic to complexity theory, and have interesting applications to compiler design. Note that academia has been very receptive of his technical achievement, the proof of consistency of System F through reducibility candidates, but much less welcoming of some of his other papers that he deemed way more interesting (as we saw recently with Terence Tao "I got a paper rejected today"). I think him writing this way is a reaction to that; rather than try to court people who might reject his ideas, he already filters people who are looking for the good stuff in them.