One way to define the algebra of differential forms $\Omega(M)$ on a smooth manifold $M$ (as explained by John Baez's week287) is as the exterior algebra of the dual of the module of derivations on the algebra $C^{\infty}(M)$ of smooth functions $M \to \mathbb{R}$.  Given that derivations are vector fields, 1-forms send vector fields to smooth functions, and some handwaving about area elements suggests that k-forms should be built from 1-forms in an anticommutative fashion, I am almost willing to accept this definition as properly motivated. 

One can now define the exterior derivative $d : \Omega(M) \to \Omega(M)$ by defining $d(f dg_1\ \dots\ dg_k) = df\ dg_1\ \dots\ dg_k$ and extending by linearity.  I am almost willing to accept this definition as properly motivated as well. 

Now, the exterior derivative (together with the Hodge star and some fiddling) generalizes the three main operators of multivariable calculus: the divergence, the gradient, and the curl.  My intuition about the definitions and properties of these operators comes mostly from basic E&M, and when I think about the special cases of Stokes' theorem for div, grad, and curl, I think about the "physicist's proofs."  What I'm not sure how to do, though, is to relate this down-to-earth context with the high-concept algebraic context described above.

Question:  How do I see conceptually that differential forms and the exterior derivative, as defined above, naturally have physical interpretations generalizing the "naive" physical interpretations of the divergence, the gradient, and the curl?  (By "conceptually" I mean that it is very unsatisfying just to write down the definitions and compute.)  And how do I gain physical intuition for the generalized Stokes' theorem?

(An answer in the form of a textbook that pays special attention to the relationship between the abstract stuff and the physical intuition would be fantastic.)

Here's a sketch of the relation between div-grad-curl and the de Rham complex, in case you might find it useful.

The first thing to realise is that the div-grad-curl story is inextricably linked to calculus in a three-dimensional euclidean space.  This is not surprising if you consider that this stuff used to go by the name of "vector calculus" at a time when a physicist's definition of a vector was "a quantity with both magnitude and direction".  Hence the inner product is essential part of the baggage as is the three-dimensionality (in the guise of the cross product of vectors).

In three-dimensional euclidean space you have the inner product and the cross product and this allows you to write the de Rham sequence in terms of div, grad and curl as follows:
$$ \matrix{ \Omega^0 & \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} & \Omega^1 & \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} & \Omega^2 & \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} & \Omega^3 \cr
\uparrow & & \uparrow & &  \uparrow & & \uparrow \cr
\Omega^0 & \stackrel{\mathrm{grad}}{\longrightarrow} & \mathcal{X} & \stackrel{\mathrm{curl}}{\longrightarrow} & \mathcal{X} & \stackrel{\mathrm{div}}{\longrightarrow} & \Omega^0 \cr}$$
where $\mathcal{X}$ stands for vector fields and the vertical maps are, from left to right, the following isomorphisms:


the identity: $f \mapsto f$
the musical isomorphism $X \mapsto \langle X, -\rangle$
$X \mapsto \omega$, where $\omega(Y,Z) = \langle X, Y \times Z \rangle$
$f \mapsto f \mathrm{dvol}$, where $\mathrm{dvol}(X,Y,Z) = \langle X, Y \times Z\rangle$


up to perhaps a sign here and there that I'm too lazy to chase.

The beauty of this is that, first of all, the two vector calculus identities $\mathrm{div} \circ \mathrm{curl} = 0$ and  $\mathrm{curl} \circ \mathrm{grad} = 0$ are now subsumed simply in $d^2 = 0$, and that whereas div, grad, curl are trapped in three-dimensional euclidean space, the de Rham complex exists in any differentiable manifold without any extra structure.  We teach the language of differential forms to our undergraduates in Edinburgh in their third year and this is one way to motivate it.

As for the integral theorems, I always found Spivak's Calculus on manifolds to be a pretty good book.

Another answer mentioned Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.  Personally I found their treatment of differential forms very confusing when I was a student.  I'm happier with the idea of a dual vector space than I am with the "milk crates" they draw to illustrate differential forms.  Wald's book on General Relativity had, to my mind, a much nicer treatment of this subject.
