If there is one really weak point in this article, it would be his dismissal of no-self in favor of "emergent phenomenon", which as far as I can tell is indistinguishable from "codependent origination" (seriously - try to name the difference). And codepedent origination is the traditional background to no-self, a phrase you've heard many times if you're at all familiar with those teachings.

So to say "this teaching isn't true, but the traditional contextual background to this teaching (under another name) is" makes you wonder if he really understands the concepts involved at the necessary depth.