Strikes me as a Sokal-style joke about bad writing in philosophy.
"A glut is a proposition that is both true and false. The rule for assigning gluts is the mirror image of the rule for assigning gaps: A statement is true exactly if it comes out true on at least one precisification."
It's not bad writing, and it's certainly not a Sokal-style hoax. These are the kinds of things that philosophers think about and this is how they write about them. I take it you're just not familiar with modern academic philosophy? Is it the terminology that's throwing you off? For comparison, here's a random snippet from the Wikipedia article on algebraic geometry:
"Like for affine algebraic sets, there is a bijection between the projective algebraic sets and the reduced homogeneous ideals which define them. The projective varieties are the projective algebraic sets whose defining ideal is prime."
Wouldn't that also sound like nonsensical or bad writing to someone unfamiliar with the field? But of course, it's not nonsense.
I'm not sure why you find that Sokal-style. Unfamiliar terminology aside, it's clear and unambiguous -- you could directly rewrite it as a mathematical definition, for example.
