Question

In recent days I’ve been listening to Rabbi Dr. Tzemach Halperin’s series of lectures on The Voice of Prophecy by Rabbi HaNazir.
As I understand it, he disagrees with your understanding of the meaning of the term “auditory logic.” If I understand correctly, you identify the concept with intuition that precedes the analytical, logical intellect that underlies it, whereas he holds that this is not so; rather, we are dealing with something—the spirit—that cannot be defined or grasped, and that any attempt to define it is in fact carried out by the contemplative cognitive framework, not by the auditory one. That is, according to him, even intuition itself is Greek and not Hebrew.
First, I didn’t fully understand his claim. Could the Rabbi explain? True, ostensibly it would make more sense for me to ask him what he thinks, but specifically I’d like to understand how you see and formulate his approach, and consequently where exactly you disagree with him.

From my impression, based on what I did manage to understand, Rabbi Halperin’s words feel empty to me—hot air, mere lip movements. How can one understand something and speak about it while at the same time saying that we have no grasp of it, or that it cannot be quantified and defined? So what are we actually talking about?
Denying the legitimacy of demanding clarification of concepts is a demagogic tool, not a logical one. Defining the concepts that participate in a discussion is the first and most basic stage of any discussion, especially a philosophical one.
I’m aware that I’m begging the question here—since I assume that what a person can speak about and understand is only that about which he has clear definitions, and only in that way can a person think and make claims that have any genuine meaning; and if there is no definition, then these are just words in the air—like talking about a round triangle and feeling as though it has some meaning—just empty talk devoid of content.
And yet I’m trying (truly with all my might) to understand the alternative. What am I missing in my understanding of his approach? (Or perhaps I’m not missing anything?)
As far as I’m concerned, the alternative Rabbi Halperin is aiming at is a mode of speech made up of dogmatic declarations that pretend to be immune to substantive treatment by the human being’s (exclusive) tools of thought.

So what I’m really asking you is whether I’m identifying the right points in my criticism of his words.
To the extent that I’m managing to explain my feelings (I feel that I’m not really), am I formulating things accurately?

Thank you very much