Let's see, I do find what he says to be provocative, as he hoped it would be. However, I think more "meaning" and "autonomy" in the office is what he is going for. Meaningful meetings, meaningful communication, etc.
I really like his distinction between voluntary and involuntary interruptions and why things like facebook, email, twitter, etc., are not distractions at work. Rather, people popping in my office/space or unscheduled meetings (MnMs) are the things that have always broken my train of thought and what truly irritate me!
I don't think meetings are toxic if they are meaningful or are based on "catching up" or sharing new ideas, fine tuning individual ideas/work, etc. Thus, there are ways to contribute to a meaningful meeting by doing a lot of the groundwork before a meeting. Example: a google document where people get to pitch their ideas before the meeting, and then fine tune them at the actual meeting. He's right, expecting people to think creatively in a distracting and forced environment is not productive or useful. (This is very relatable to the classroom experience...)
I love the ideas of passive communication, no talking, and instead of canceling meetings, I'd say make them as meaningful as possible by obviating the mind-numbing tasks usually done at meetings and putting the meeting more in the hands of the employees... that is, something they can actually look forward to.