I must say that coming back two day after posting I'm massively surprised by the negativity. I wish someone would explain to me what the beef is.

Most of the "negativity" consists of attempts to explain what problem we have.

I mean the piece makes no claims at all so what is there that would need to be backed by references?

There were claims. At the very least you have claimed certainty about some desires of human minds. Also, this isn't a community of lawyers. If you decorate a claim with weasel phrases like "I can't imagine but" or "might", it doesn't make it a non-claim or extempt you from need to justify it.

It offers a few notions that are self evident, such as the abstract nature, and postulated underpinnings of human knowledge.

What is self-evident for one may not be so for other. Nature of human knowledge is certainly not self-evident.

I'm gratified to see though that there are at least some positive comments. Perhaps they actually understood it for what it is.

It is very probable that those positive commenters are your sockpuppets, as NMJablonski has pointed out. Please, don't troll.