You also say in Part 1 that it is "ludicrous" that to critique a design properly, one must understand the context, situation, etc. A person who demands perfection and critiques a design without context is an asshole.

First of all, it’d probably be helpful for you to take a look at my framework on design criticism Criticism and the Armchair Fallacy.

From the Armchair Fallacy:

The more context one has as to the nature of the process that led to a product, the better one can determine a point of failure. However, to engage in criticism one need not have worked at a company and know the internal operations that resulted in a particular design. In fact, if criticism were only permitted by those with access to protected internal information, it would very rarely occur.

and

When readers say "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole" they entirely miss the point. In making such a statement, they only admit that they cannot handle the truth. Instead, they decide to invoke the Tu Quoque fallacy, with the intent of reversing the focus onto the critic. In such an environment where critical assessments of imperfection (let alone findings of project mishandling) are met with accusations of being an “asshole” it is not the critic who should be examined, but the community unwilling to look honestly at itself.

Back to your points:

Now, if you have achieved perfection, in your team and in your execution of your designs, you need to tell everyone how to do this. Because literally no one has figured it out.

I’ve never claimed to have achieved perfection. Frankly I don’t even aspire to it. I do aspire to make good design though.

On the other hand, perfection is something that I will be covering later on. Interestingly enough, it’s part of the modern minimalist ideal that can only be reached through reduction.

Regarding your writing. It is extremely condescending. In Part III, you're linking to wikipedia pages about these esoteric philosophical terms. For what? So us plebeians can follow along?

This is actually very helpful feedback. I’ve been conflicted about including links to definitions. It is not just the issue of appearing condescending. When I link to commonplace words, I myself am the one who looks stupid. However, I’ve received feedback from many people that they didn’t know particular words and appreciated wikipedia links to them. It’s a tough tradeoff. At least when it comes to definition, I’m just going for clarity. I would be curious if you have any advice when it comes to this.

When people say things like, "Give it a minute" or "Let's all think about this for a sec", they're giving you really good advice.

It’s empty rhetoric at best, stifling debate at worst. We need these discussions. Telling people to wait a minute is hardly brave, and ultimately has led this to be on the whole a pretty vacuous debate.

Or about the pros/cons of minimalism (unless you're an art historian/critic, then by all means carry on)

That’s where I’m coming at it from.

For me, design criticism is about helping the design. It's about making progress. The way you speak about it shuts down conversations...I appreciate your enthusiasm and tenacity. And if you directed it towards a more positive, helpful conversation, it can go a lot further. That's all. Thanks.

Quite the opposite, I’m opening up the conversation to perspectives that have been closed off given that the industry is in almost universal agreement about the minimalist aesthetic.

Dimensional design is, you will admit, marginalized. I am positive in that I hope for a day when formerly understood principles are engaged with. I am attempting to resurface those. At the same time I do have to discredit fallacious arguments.