pu has been less unifying than might have been hoped. It is useful to note that jan Sonja says explicitly that it is (just) how she uses tp. Since she started the language, her usage deserves respect. But she was absent from the community for large parts of a decade and has not acquainted herself with what happened in that period, so her usage does not always agree with that of those who worked through that period. Nor does her usage override that of the old hands, since she did not work through the problems that those hands solved. In short, pu is a good start with needs to be used carefully and tentatively in several places (starting with the vocabulary -- several words she leaves out are surely not going to disappear, several she combines will remain separate and one she adds will not catch on except, as here, as an English expression referring somewhat dismissively to the book).
I will not get into an argument with anyone about private philosophical/psychological terminology; that field is too littered with nonsense. I take it she is using 'kon' for some psycho-spiritual "reality", not particularly a biological one (although that would make sense, given the equation of breath with life), So she is comparing her inner experiences with the external (suprapersonal) aspects here. Seems a fair (at least, usual) game to play.
Everybody who speaks English uses 'olin' for "likes a lot" occasionally. I wish she hadn't done it in a definitive place, but she did, and it was a screw-up.
Thoughts are a big topic. Here she seems to be talking not so much about the general process but about the particular cases of formulating then into coherent systems, capable of outward expression, even if never so expressed. So, she uses the terminology of external expression but marks it as internal only. The simplification is linguistic in nature, so the linguitic nature of what is simplified is made explicit. But these are all pilin nonetheless.
You are welcome to rant about pu here all you want. I am not a great fan, as noted.