Thanks BobKay. I took the time to Google his work at lunch. I managed to find what is most likely an extremely over-condensed, Coles Notes type version of this, his third 'Critique' on subjects that most would find way too "undefinitive " (yes I know that's not a real word) to even take a stab at.
I actually got about 3 paragraphs into my thoughts on the bit I could grasp from a quick scan of the above shortened version but I have since deleted them. I realized I hadn't read enough of the real paper to make judgmental statements on his theory of judgments
No, they were not necessarily negative judgments either. Although the one thought I will share is that the samples of his interpretations did at times appear to be thoughtful enough to inspire deep though on my part <good> but yet full of terminology that in itself was very open to interpretation. Thus I wondered if perhaps his actual paper was accompanied by a glossary of sorts that hardened up his terminology so it was less interpretational ...or.. was he deliberately using interpretational language to describe his theories so that they were more likely to be accepted by the masses (supports multiple interpretations) or less likely to be refuted.
In the end though, it is a stronger effort to explain something unquantifiable than I could have mustered up so it's worth reading and I'll be checking the library to see if I can find the full paper.
Humble opinions based on not enough data. Hopefully taken as conversation, not critique.