First, I'd say that this guy is, um, just a bit OTT. Witness:
What we must instill, I'm convinced, is an attitude toward punctuation, a set of feelings about both the process in general and the individual marks of punctuation. That set of feelings might be called a philosophy of punctuation. (Agh--more philosophy! Dasrex, this is all your fault! )
...I have developed a set of emotional responses to individual marks of punctuation. ...
Let me now introduce my dramatis personae. First come the period and the comma. These are the only lovely marks of punctuation, and of the two the period is the lovelier, because ...
Sorry, but that was about enough for me to write the rest of the article off. I also wonder how punctuation can be informed: My punctuation is informed by two ideals: clarity and simplicity.
All of that notwithstanding, I do give him marks for: I say "a" philosophy, because I'm not yet so opinionated as to insist that everyone adopt my own.
He does clearly describe two approaches to using punctuation. One is by the rules. The other is one that his friend uses: to indicate through his punctuation how a sentence is supposed to sound. I confess that I do that here, fairly often; for ex. I'll put a comma that is grammatically incorrect, to indicate where I would pause verbally. (I often also add a hyphen (hi, Anna!) if I want to emphasize something.) And thus my punctuation, like his friend's, can be inconsistent. Which is better? Depends on the context, I reckon.