Hi Derek,

(? There is no email option here and there are no emails in my btinternet in-box.).

Where you see references, bibliographies, etc merely as a formal method of attribution of auhorship. I also see it as that but also as an accrediting structure for the whole output of universities, and for authors, whose names must appear in the references as accredited and accrediting scholars. Only these individuals can successfully submit and contribute to texts (texts: written works).

As you are focusing on single words and selected phrases as obscure I assume that you have understood the whole project or idea in outline. Is this assumption more or less correct?

To clarify on a single term you highlight as obscure. A "net" is a cross-linked structure. Some nets have particular names such as
1) "Aslaug's", who comes neither naked nor dressed,
2) "Seine", a fine net used for fishing
3)  "Internet", a system used to connect participants to a common server.
4)  "integral text", a name I gave to the net of references through which scholastic knowledge is presented.

As you can see, the idea of a net is a simple one, and quite appropriate as a description for all four examples. Of these, the most difficult would be 3) I think you would agree. It is for me..

Regarding the phrase “The rise of distinct integral texts has led to the analytic continental "divide", which arises through the attempt to disseminate facts or ideas through the non-factual structure of the integral text.”

In other words, scholars traditionally communicate their ideas through the net or scaffolding of references which is a record of accreditation for those ideas. The analytic and continental scholars are unable to do that because they have no common net. So, all they can do is participate in an unstructured, non-accredited format, such as public debates, hearsay and anecdotal references.