Auditory logic

In recent days I have been listening to Rabbi Dr. Tzemach Halperin's series of lessons on the Voice of Prophecy for Rabbi HaNazir.
As I understand it, he disagrees with your understanding of the meaning of the concept of auditory logic. If I understand correctly, you identify the concept with the intuition that precedes the logical analytical mind that underlies it, while he believes that this is not true, but that it is about something (the spirit) that cannot be defined and perceived, and that any attempt to define it is actually made by the perceptual system of cognition, not the auditory one. In other words, intuition itself, according to him, is Greek and not Hebrew.
First, I didn't fully understand his argument. Could the Rabbi explain? Although it would seem more appropriate to ask him what his opinion is, I would actually like to understand how you see and formulate his method, and in any case, what you disagree with him on.

From what I did manage to understand – I feel like Rabbi Halperin's words are empty of content. Pure talk and lip-smacking. How can you understand something and talk about it and at the same time say that we have no perception of it or that it cannot be quantified and defined? So what are we actually talking about?
Denying the legitimacy to demand clarification of concepts is a demagogic and illogical tool. Defining concepts that participate in the discussion is the first and basic step in any discussion, especially a philosophical one.
I am aware that I am assuming what is wanted here – since I assume that what a person can talk about and understand is only that about which he has clear definitions, and only in this way can a person be educated and argue in a way that will have some real meaning, and if there is no definition, then these are empty words – like talking about a round triangle and feeling as if it has some meaning – these are just empty words.
And yet I try (really with all my might) to understand the alternative. What am I missing in understanding his method? (Or maybe not?)
For me, the alternative that Rabbi Halperin is referring to is a form of speech of dogmatic statements that claim to be immune to substantive treatment of the (exclusive) tools of human thought.

And what I asked you was, am I on the right points in my criticism of his words?
If I manage to explain my feelings (I feel like I don't), am I wording things accurately?

Thank you very much.