I'm not familiar with his work, but I'm familiar with the general idea from lots of other sources. If all human cognition is equally fictive since our concepts are abstract simplifications, it would make little sense to castigate civilization for being based on frauds and to celebrate neo-shamans for being truth-tellers. There would be no truth to tell.

In my writings I try to walk a fine line here. I agree that we're surrounded by fictions, I've argued that mass culture is sustained by a kind of trance, and I defend a pragmatic, neo-Kantian epistemology which entails that no mental or linguistic representation is perfectly adequate to its subject matter. I've also tried to explain how scientific objectivity is a social stance.

Yet I also reject postmodern fatalism, the idea that all propositions are equally dream-like, subjective, or misleading. I think there are existential reckonings or "spiritual" experiences that go beyond our conceptual simplifications, to grasp intuitively our predicament of being persons in a cosmic wilderness.

So I'm not sure the nature of our cognition will doom us. We have more than one way of thinking, and some ways are better than others. That's not to say I'm especially hopeful, though.