The article is very explanatory and clear on an upper level of understanding. On the way down

1. “Aristotle … invented logic as a supreme way of argument”: as well other logics were invented and used in ancient times for different purposes. For example, logic used in the Talmud is aimed to interpretation of Torah and uses comparative conclusions missing in Aristotle’s logic. No logic was intended to explain or model the work of the mind. Newton first works were dedicated to creation of an artificial language incorporating universal classification of phenomena (in particular, the language has 16 past and future tenses, first past tense was defined as “an event that happened in the past but so close to present that no other event will be closer”).  There was a trend in 17^th century to formalize phenomena (rather than logic). Descartes expressed it in the following way: “I think it is possible to invent such a language and to discover the science on which it depends: it would make peasants better judges of the truth about the world than philosophers are now.” /Descartes to Mersenne, 20 November 1629/     
2. DL operations remind, to some extend, to approach suggested by Maslov (Maslov’s iterative method) for solving NP complete problems (http://books.google.com/books?id=1B3Ob2mBYNEC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=maslov+np+complete+problem&source=bl&ots=3E8LA0LX2h&sig=C1uw-_wJosShBCzSYLdYuFg_y9E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VxqzT8-bKIP-8ATUvO3sCA&ved=0CFIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=maslov%20np%20complete%20problem&f=false )
3. May be fanciest feature of a human language is its self-descriptiveness and meta-closeness: a grammar and word meaning of a language can be described within the same language frameworks. As well any statement about the language and language texts can be expressed in the same language: that immediately welcomes Russell’s paradox. 

AI

This is an article of the unusually broad scope, covering enormous conceptual territory. In the small format it touches a lot of topics and is able to connect them. Some of them are original ideas of Perlovsky, like his “knowledge instinct”. There is a lot of scientific speculations in the best sense of it, that is very intellectually stimulating.

some

Is it possible to describe the major mind mechanisms in few pages? The paper gives a consistent description of mechanisms of higher cognitive functions. The ideas that concepts function like mental models of the world, and that emotions are related to neural mechanisms indicating satisfactions of instinctual drives are not new, the author should receive credit for properly referencing the original publications. This interpretation of emotions seems too narrow, many different psychological states and mechanisms are called emotions.
Similarly, language, cognition, and consciousness are too broad mental functions to be described within few pages. Yet, selecting few aspects of several mental functions in such a way that nearly entire higher mind functioning is presented concisely and consistently is a significant achievement of this paper. Especially impressive is a tour de force summarizing consciousness, beautiful, music and the essence of symbols and symbolic cultures. The format of a short paper may seem questionable for such a wide field. Yet this format makes possible for the author to achieve the elegant consistency in describing higher human cognition, touching on many topics, every one of which has seemed a mystery to the entire field of cognitive science, including many outstanding scientists. This seems to justify omissions and simplifications. This short paper seems to contain more answers about mysteries of mind than three years of subscription to Scientific American Mind.
This does not necessarily seem strange for those familiar with Perlovsky’s publications in mathematical, neural network, engineering, psychological, philosophical, linguistic, and aesthetic journals.