“Emic Ethnography” would be better referred to as just ‘ethnography’ as the former is like saying ‘a dark shade of black’. If not some clarification would be useful.

Ethnology and ethnography are commonly misapplied. In terms of political sciences there is a large amount of similarity to Berlin’s ‘Monism and Pluralism’ approach - my point being favouring one over the other is to only take in half the picture.

Anthropology straddles numerous subjects. Some aspects of anthropology are more strongly based in empirical measurements than others. ‘Applied Ethics’ is just something akin to what the current guru states as a ‘universal truth’. The solidity of ethics (scientifically speaking) is contained within DNA ... but the species is part of the larger environment (hence the importance of BOTH Monism and Pluralism without being seduced by one over the other.

As creatures - perhaps overly fond - of cutting and categorising; it is a constant habit of ours to reimagine our experience of the world through different lenses. You may as well argue that physics is a type of philosophy because physicists actively use free-formed thinking and imagination to explore and question reality itself and what is commonly perceived as so-called ‘reality’.

On top of the above there is the niggling issue of defining ‘science’. I’m sure you’ve done this elsewhere, but a reminder of your position is probably worth mentioning in the OP.

I believe this would be a good candidate for ‘Articles’?

Some people are attracted to novelty where others are more attracted to what is familiar. It probably has much more to do with exposure and psychological dispositions - ‘attraction’ that is - than anything else.

In terms of physical appearance so many things may factor into this - including outright ‘racism’. We don’t tend to call someone ‘sexist’ for preferring one particular sex, or ‘racist’ if they have an aesthetic inclination towards men or women of a certain physical build (regardless of skin tone or ethnicity).

The question in and of itself says more about the societal state of our times and how many are struggling to re/define certain boundaries and/or to obsess over labels and identity in a world that is seemingly becoming more and more homogenous (in terms of globalism and cultural trends blending).

@Gus Lamarch

I think it is a fair comment to make in the current situation. Today ‘history’ (or rather ‘interpreting history’) has become the mainstay rather than simple scholarship (attempts at dry records of current events).

You’ve not really sold me on the ‘ancients’ pessimism and modern ‘optimism’ - so to speak. I think in societies there are always somewhat equally pervading elements of both. The idea of a ‘Golden Age’ has persisted right through from ancient Greece even into the current colloquial “When I was a lad ...” which can be both a harking back to better days and/or referring to the benefits that people have today.

With the advent of History human perspective has necessarily changed. Our arrival at the written/recorded word/thought our very idea and conceptualisation of a thing called ‘time’ has undoubtedly embedded itself in the heart of practically every human on the planet today. The empirical pencil we’ve mapped the world (weltanschuuang) with has become increasingly hard to erase/ignore.

Isiah Berlin’s ideas may be related to what you’re looking at here? His thought on “Pluralism/monism” echoing something in what you’re saying here.

Adios!

Dymora -

It’s your’s. Own it, explore it and use it as you personally see fit.

It is a burden at first, and an exciting one, but it will ebb away little by little - as it must. The trick is to frame your current state and make a solid and honest memory of it because once the peek subsides you’ll barely believe yourself any longer (that is the seemingly perpetual state of the human condition).

Just know that what you have doesn’t matter as much as it does matter. It seems selfish to hold it whilst other’s don’t, but really ... it isn’t something that can be ‘communicated’; only recognised in others - smile and live. Talking to blind people about how beautiful the view is is not likely going to appeal to most of them.

To quote Clive Barker: “Be burn so hard yet shed so little light”... a little is enough :)

X -

Depends on what country you’re referring to? In the US it would be anyone earning around 500,000 dollars a year or more.

On a global scale it would include everyone who posts here. In some countries the distribution is more skewed than in others. Historically the most powerful nations (in terms of economics) always suffer from extremes of poverty and wealth. Due to various factors - including the effects of a ‘smaller’ world because of communication and mass advertising - this common feature is probably magnified due to awareness and actual adverse effects brought about by such effects of our current revolutionary period (computer/information age, soon to be CRISPR age).

A great problem is the global community acting like ‘their country’ is the be all and end all of everything. Things are a changing though .., subtly but very, VERY quickly.

I’m just waiting for people to be less fearful. ... or rather to ‘embrace’ fear. Opportunity is a mindset not a privilege. None of us are perfect, and none of us enjoy suffering (obviously!), but it helps to fully understand the benefits of suffering to better ourselves in what small ways we can - sadly this is just something that comes with experience IF you are willing to blame yourself rather than the ‘regime’ or ‘them’.

GL HF :)

Dymora -

I don’t post here anymore, but this is something I can relate to.

What happened to you has happened to other people. I believe it happens to everyone, but not everyone recalls/recognises it.

I refer to it as an extreme altered state of consciousness. It could be a mini stroke or numerous other things. In scientific terms I’d say it has something to do with DMT (naturally released in the brain).

A common element of such transformations happen under various degrees of stress and strain. Like I said, I believe everyone has this but not everyone pays attention to it - various forms of psychosis are common features of this experience and so many are ‘given treatment’ instead of viewing the experience as being potentially part of a healing/growing/developing process (and of course, some people DO need treatment). It is a very hard thing to recognise/diagnose.

In simple human terms it appears you adjusted to a mental shift and released your new potentials. Believe it or not most people are scared of what they desire. ‘Fear’ is key. I’m sure during your experience - and since - you have less ‘fear’ and a far greater ability to step out of yourself (so to speak).

You could call this Jungian Individuation or easily compare it to ‘shamanic initiation’ (there are plenty of common features of what it means to become a ‘shaman’ and the repeatedly instances of physical and mental stresses the body is put under to reach certain ‘points’ - religious practices tap into this too.

Anyway, enjoy and explore :)

Happiness is nonsense as is sadness.

Watch a master. It doesn’t involve ‘not speaking’ to those you oppose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7R-X1CXiI8

Just popped back in to reassess the issue. I haven’t seen any comments made by mods that show anything but a modicum of self-realisation.

Almost nothing put forward by the mods holds weight in their reason for the banning. Maybe not everyone here has read through the pages and compared and contrasted what was said, the manner it was put across in and what constitutes ‘poor quality’ posts.

Chester’s posts - agreement with what he says is irrelevant - were of no more ‘poor quality’ than some off-hand quips and insults thrown around by others with far less to say.

Why is it? In that thread StreetlightX insults several people, calling them stupid, fuck wits and such. Is that okay?

Clear case of one rule for mods and another for others - who’ve, as you noticed, been purposefully aggravated by the person who banned them (that is trolling).

Note: The irony is the thread is about provocation and people in positions of power violating that power. The person so emotional vocal about the situation - including comments relating to burning everything down - is so egotistical they cannot see how vile what they say and how they act on this forum is in relation to the problems faced in US culture.

Anyway, if that is how things are here I’m going to leave as I have before. I don’t believe in people banning others on personal whims, but if that is how things are here (the second occasion this has happened and the reason I went away last time) I’ll just talk with my feet.

Hello reddit :)

And who said that? The person banned or StreetlightX? I’m guessing you’re quoting the person who was banned.

StreetlightX doesn’t appear to have the temperament to judge who should or shouldn’t be banned. I’m saying this based on current events. I’m saying this based on numerous instances of name calling and provocation when someone disagree with them.

Complaining about 23 pages of people talking about violent behavior after they pretty much said they wanted everything to burn to the ground? Seriously? Was such a clearly hyperbolic and provocative statement put across to direct the discussion in a sensible manner or merely to showcase their need for volatile verbal conflict in order to provoke statements from other that would allow them to ban them.

Then there is the cloaked threats and hints beforehand. Someone apparently suggesting Frank was ‘trolling’? Insanity.

We watch the watchmen. If they’re not up to the task we’ll go someone else. Get it?

Are you going to ban yourself for your hostile comments?

If you have the power to ban and repeatedly provoke and call people names there is something seriously wrong with how this forum is moderated. Is the irony lost on you?

You’re just embarrassing yourself. Don’t you see?

A rational discussion HERE is possible - not only that I believe that is the point of this kind of forum. I don’t think anyone commenting here is looking the other way (I think it’s pretty hard to look the other way considering how this has spilled across international news headlines).

The question is then how to use this opportunity to better the US for the people living in the US. Small steps can build momentum. I think a lot of the peaceful protesters should give serious consideration, and active encouragement from the community, to join the police force themselves.

In terms of surveillance there is something there too. I think without video footage the situation in the US would be much worse. It’s horrific to see and hear about the string if cases like this one, but equally such horror is better seen in the cold light of day than hidden. People can cover up their views well enough most of the time, but under surveillance it’s almost impossible. For that reason open public access to police operations - to some larger degree - would be an area worthy of consideration (as is already happening and as has been happening as practically everyone has a live streaming handheld device now).

I think everyone’s got the message. The thing is a few bad people can make a helluva mess giving the misconception that more foul play is at work than there is.

Building something important takes time and coordination. Destruction is something any chump can put their hands to with success.

Note: There is no excusing such actions. They don’t need to be excused only noted. Human nature is what it is. When upheavals happen we’ll always see the demons of our natures come out to play.

I was hoping for some kind of discussion about what is happening, how it can/could be handled, and what steps to take towards a future goal - and what such incremental steps may look like.

I think it reasonably fair to say progress has been made, albeit with backwards steps along the way. The encouraging signs are that these public protests look string enough not to dissipate - this looks like an opportunity for rational discussion and a rethink about troubled areas in US culture.

Knowledge of both is essential to recognise them. Someone only interested in ‘the good’ is setting themselves up for denial of their potentially ‘evil actions’ as they are only ‘good’ in their mind.

It’s a really tough thing to look deep into our own sense of right and wrong rather than just blithely skirt around the difficulty of deciding where and when to draw the line.

Has the situation at least improved in part over the past few decades?

I don’t buy into the idea that these are isolated instances. If we see one horrendous act in full public view it is silly to assume the same or worse never happens out of public view.

The ability for the public to document what happens live is a great boon. Camera footage is mandatory for police in the US, right? If not maybe installing such technology would mitigate some of the potential threats from within the institution that is meant to uphold the law rather than act as if they are above it.

One thing is pretty clear. Justice for one man’s murder is NOT justice for previous victims of police corruption. A clear plan set out by protesters would be a great thing! Asking for justice for this one incident clearly needs to take its momentum into some kind of protest backed movement that DEMANDS changes to how law enforcement functions.

I do think psychological screening is a VERY tricky matter too. We’re talking about a very high stressed job where violence and poor human behavior is seen in a daily basis. My friend was a policeman for a few years and he saw some quite crazy things - I imagine in the US (in certain areas) the dangers police face are enough to push anyone over the edge of reason.

Perhaps the peaceful protesters could be actively encouraged to join the police? That would seem to be a VERY good idea don’t you think? Often enough the people nest equipped for a job can be the very people who are loath to do it (from my friend’s perspective I know for a fact he joined the police because of an incident he was involved in personally - he was angry and scared, and honed that into responsible action by joining up).

Really though, this goes deeper than a law enforcement issue ... economic investments into schooling for poorer communities would be a good longterm plan, but the immediate problems are much tougher to handle on top of the current climate.

HELLO!

Is there a chance of a discussion about where this may lead the state of US politics in the near/far future?

It looks like the general public are doing as much as they can about this at the moment. What is the end goal? How do we get there? What steps/measures need to be put into place?

In an age of surveillance, both public and private, it has got harder and harder for crimes to go unnoticed. In there some manner in which this can be further implemented to protect the innocent? Clearly without such technology it’s likely no one would’ve believed/cared. Seeing is believing so this is probably the most striking weapon in combating injustices.

What dangers await and what cautionary measures need to be considered?

I think that’s a SLIGHT overreaction. I don’t think we’re there yet. I don’t believe most people in the US want the country to split. If it did that would be a pretty big mess - it’s already set up in a way to try and get the best of both worlds with a singular nation and independent states with there own laws.

A large country, like the US, diverse and interconnected landmass breaking up into completely sovereign states would lead to all kinds of horrible situations arising (perhaps even a civil war).

You can’t start over if you burn along with everything else. Stand alone remarks like that are, in my mind, exactly the opposite of what sensible wish to hear - frankly I think it’s a disgustingly irresponsible thing to say in a time like this.

There are people out there willing to take advantage of the situation and rile people up because they want a ‘revolution’. Streetlight said he wants everything to burn ... do you approve of those sentiments at this current junction of social upheaval?

I am listening to what is being said. I am also aware of the rather naive political leanings of some folks on this site (including the mods). Rioting shouldn’t be encouraged. Trashing amazon and such places doesn’t bother me though, but at the end of the day the innocent suffer and lose their businesses when things get out of hand.

From what I’ve seen in the media the protesters are NOT rioting or destroying property. There are vicious elements that are taking advantage of the situation. As an example a major reported that ALL of the arrests made in his home state were from out of state - meaning, those causing destruction and trouble in his home town had no interest in ‘protecting the community’ because it wasn’t their community.

I’ve seen the vast majority of protesters behaving well. I’ve also seen police acting, for the most part, in a civil manner under huge pressure.

Hopefully after this has calmed down a bit we’ll see some actual sensible political candidates come to the fore so after Trump’s/Biden’s next term in office they’ll be a REAL choice for people. If not, this will continue and then I’ll have to side with what christian said (we’re witnessing the initial cracks show in the splitting up of the the US - maybe in a decade or so).

We’re both lucky and cursed with communication. I do have faith in people though so at the end of the day the word is the most powerful tool we can wield to help move forwards instead of backwards.

Note: I’m not from the US so my perspective on the matter is carefully measured in a broader global context.

What makes you think others countries want you there? First of all you need relevant skills, money and/or youth on your side.

Canada has been actively seeking immigrants for a while.

Perhaps thought experiments are a tool, and used poorly produce poor results.

I have much sympathy for your animosity towards misused trams. — Banno

That sums it up for me. Sum people approach them with distain believing they’re meant to guide everyone to sum kind of ‘ethical’ consensus. They are, in terms of ethics, extremely useful for seeking/seeing the nuances of how ‘cold’ reasoning plays its part in shifting the burden of responsible action/thought.

Ethics isn’t merely about exchange figures and summing up some total solution. Thought experiments and hypothetical scenarios are not calculations.

I think your view of their purpose is absurd. The point of ethical thought experiments is not to debate and come to some consensus of right or wrong.

I’ve been over this before quite thoroughly and it is surprising how many people just dig their heels in at any suggestion that the ‘purpose’ they see might just be completely wrong.

Any public proclamation is always biased by the perceived biases in others the proclaimer bring into the public sphere. For me the point of such ethical dilemmas framed in thought experiments (hyperbolic or otherwise) is to first and foremost be honest with oneself rather than curb personal thoughts simply because they’re uncomfortable.

People in the emergency services and the army train in this manner. The same comes into play for us as individuals. It takes work to fortify our ethical positions with actual actions and behaviors that adhere to them. Probably all of us say one thing and do another a lot of the time, but preparation of thought can have us acting more like we’d have wished to rather than simply ignoring the inconvenient truth of our susceptibility to failing to act as we, at our core, truly deem fit.

So too, I think, should philosophers. It's hard to imagine more terrible ways of thinking about philosophical problems than via thought experiment. At best, they ought to be used as examples of how not to think; or how to think in circumstances that are extremely constrained and rare. — StreetlightX

This is missing the point. The more extreme the scenario is serves only to bring up your personal take on the matter. They are opportunities to see why you think what you think, what you’d prefer to think, what you’d say as opposed to what you really think, and what can be done to balance these things ... to name a few paths of enquiry.

That's just one example. The article linked gives some nice intrinsic reasons why thought expriements make for pretty terrible philosophy. Among them of course being that thought experiments are almost uniformly artificial and, again, totally ungeneralizable. The article itself focuses on what it calls ethical thought experiments, but I think the same is true for other well known ones too. The damage that 'brain in the vat' thought experiments have wrought on philosophy of mind, for instance, is I think incalculable. But that's another story.

In any case, this is mostly an excuse to pimp out the article, and induce some discussion about the role of thought experiments in philosophy more generally. — StreetlightX

I’ll have to have a closer look at it. Clearly the use I find they don’t from what you’ve espoused.

I completely understand that a reasonable number of people find them actively repulsive - I just think they’re looking at them in too rigid a fashion.

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m asking. Apply your own mind to the the situation or are you going along with Rousseau who thought people did not know their own will, or Proudhon who believed in a social contract that did not involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others, or Pettit who thought that instead of arguing for explicit consent, which can always be manufactured he argues that the absence of an effective rebellion against it is a contract's only legitimacy. — Brett

So you were just playing dumb. Look where that’s got you ...

Bye!

1 is wrong. 3 is stupid. Convince me otherwise

Are you seriously asking me how the ‘social contract theory’ is relevant to this topic? You appear to have given up before you’ve even got started.

Maybe someone else will help you out. GL

Next to non-consciousness.

If you would give me the offer right now to erase my modern day knowledge and return to the times of hunter-gatherers — madworld

Who’s stopping you?

That doesn’t clarify anything. Clearly there is an error in what you wrote, just wondered what you meant to say - I make enough goofs myself (just asking).

What process? I looked back at the origin of that line and it makes no sense whatsoever:

Having free will does indeed consist in being unaffected by certain things and one’s behavior instead determined instead by other things. Namely, in one’s behavior being determined by one’s practical or moral reasoning (what you think you should do), and other influences having negligible interference in that process. — Pfhorrest

The part in bold? Say what?

Why do you think? Take a stab at it as a given and maybe you’ll find something.

Regardless, what we belief is always going to be overruled by what we feel - in terms of our claim to authorship of our actions that is!

This is the crux of the question I suppose. There is a state, it exists. As Pantagruel suggested; the community came before the individual. So what is the best way to live in it? — Brett

And that is a conflation. State does not equate to community. I was quite clear, as others have been, about the difference between a community of humans and a state/nation. The interests are completely different beasts as the latter are VERY recent occurrences - in terms of human existence.

As for the rest its your choice. If you deem your position better so be it ... that is kind of the point I was getting at. If that suits you after your diverse life experiences so be it - how diverse your experiences have been is your concern relative to what you see as appropriate. In simplistic terms we’re born and then we actively map out a cosmological view of our existence in accordance with what we consider too risky and too safe. I’m saying anything fantastic there am I? It’s just how things are for every living creature. We just happen to be able to extend our concerns beyond the knowledge of our death which doesn’t necessarily mean we’re all here to help humanity cease to exist in 5000 years rather than 500 years.

Note: I view more extreme altruistic views with as much concern as I do nihilistic views - at least the latter is more clearly a danger than the former.

Here’s one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle

Yes there was more, but I don’t regard my question as about “what we are”. — Brett

‘What we are’ is the bedrock your question lies on though. To explain further, I meant that ‘what is best’ can only be addressed with a fuller understanding of ‘what we are’ - be this as an individual or otherwise. What is more the ‘best’ knowledge we have of the situation of ‘others’ is through ourselves (quite obviously: the ‘obvious,’ ironically, being something easily overlooked!)

What we are presupposes that we exist as humans. That is all. True enough we know this from our own individual perspectives, but that isn’t strictly speaking the same thing as ‘individualism’ - I grant you that.

Instead of; how can I contribute in a way that creates the most wellbeing for the most people? — Brett

Why would anyone in their right mind presume they know what is better for others? The only way is by throwing our personal perspective on others as if it is as good as identical to others. That seems inherently flawed to me, doesn’t it to you?

My question now is, I suppose, in what way are we contributing with our sense of individuality. What do you have to contribute that would create the most good for the most? — Brett

The most good for the most reeks of a kind of pandering to what others tell me is good, be this through societal conventions or otherwise, rather than what I arrive at as good through my necessarily painful and hard journey of coming to understand ‘what I am’ amongst ‘what we are’ as human beings living a life - which is an unfinished task and remains so (thankfully!)

Maybe I’m veering off-track here?

In short, I see it as much better for me and everyone else to do what I feel as being ‘best’ than to stick to some convention of what is ‘best’ - ie. Follow the nation/state rigidly. That is not to say and don’t see the great use of social agreements. I certainly expect that my wants/needs/desires will conflict with those of others, but I don’t have to, and don’t feel it’s ‘good’ to, adhere to social standards because ‘that is what people do’ ... I find that an unethical and intolerable position to cling to. If my ‘good’ is ‘wrong’ then I suffer the consequences as they come to me without any ‘blame’ to lay at the government, state, nation, god or anything or anyone else’s feet other than my own. I get back up, dust myself down - maybe weep a little - and then carry-on imbued with a ‘better,’ yet faulty, understanding of ‘what we are’ as individual humans among other humans, and what we are as independent beings apart from others.

Sometimes it is more comforting and healthy to adhere to social conventions. Comforting and healthy now may just be discomforting and unhealthy in the near/far future. We can only assess this by remaining open to exploration of ourselves as individuals and as part of AND apart from humanity as a whole.

I’m against the idea, at its core, of a ‘nation of people’ or a ‘state of people’ above the individual human spirit. That is not to say I am against social interaction just its overreaching manifestations - which are clearly present in the modern world at in present conflict with our current freedom to reach around the world with ease (as we are right now on this forum).

There was more to it than the bold part ...

What is ‘best’ is a pointless question. The question is more about ‘what are we?’ And the answer to that is a continual process by which we engage in life (actively or passively until death). — I like sushi

Once it made sense to submit to God. The reward was eternal life in the presence of God. There was little or no reward in the present. Everything was defined by that idea. Of course it was riddled with injustice. But the state as a psychological creature, as opposed to a religious creature, does not seem to be an improvement, and it’s the psychological state that has placed the emphasis on the individual, because that’s where the disease or problem rested, down deeper than the state as it appeared. A happy person was bound to be more of a benefit than the weight of despair. So the emphasis on the individual. The healthy individual was bound to be a benefit but somehow that mutated into the idea that the individual was more important than the state. — Brett

I think there is just as good an argument from the position that religion developed our sense of individuality. The nation/state has probably exerted more force on the suppression of individualism than religion has - that said, both offer up a sense of identity which was more or less what I was getting at.

Note: Keep in mind ‘religion’ doesn’t require the belief in some deity and/or eternal life - that is just one prevalent iteration of the whole ‘religious’ scheme (as in our common Judeo-Christian heritage as English speaking subjects - we’re culturally entangled in this due to where and when we were born).

As for the part in bold ... why? This is your assumption. Personally speaking the most rewarding strides in my life haven’t been made wading through happiness - maybe you’ve been luckier? :D That said, I do kind of agree. It is not ‘happiness’ that bothers me but more it’s kind of glib use as some kind of ultimate achievement. It is a rather strange term when you think about it that eludes meaning even though we all have experience of it. That is what I was getting at with the ‘best’ point: it’s more about exploration and discovery than some fixed idea of ‘good’/‘bad,’ or ‘happy/sad’ polarity. After all the joys I have experience may pale into insignificance compared to yours or visa versa. We can only find out where we are on any scale of ‘better or worse’ by straddling life and riding it long and hard, and with good helpings of fear and bravery ... even then nothing is guaranteed, but at least it is SOMETHING rather than willful passivity, subjugation and a existential shrug at our sense of being.

I don’t believe I missed the point from what you’ve stated above.

I posed my position in terms of the many iterations of poorly articulated positions that claim to be reasonable ones in terms of ‘panpsychism’.

I have no qualms with the idea of some physical property of matter that, at some level, manifests as consciousness. In this sense the ‘mysteriousness’ of emergence is no more (in some cases less so) ‘mysterious’ than some property X that exists in all matter. Consciousness itself - us here now discussing it - is inextricable from the perceived problem as it is part of it.

We may as well argue about the universe ‘starting’ to happen or stars. It makes no difference to the logical position of the situation other than we’re more focus in here on the subjective sense - ie. conscious experience.

If thee was some physical property it would still lead to some kind of gradual progression - on SOME level. Even if it’s an all or nothing situation - much like the firing of neurons - that doesn’t take away from there being level of complexity below that are far from a simple all or nothing mechanism.

I find it to be a reasonable idea to ponder, but not one to adhere to with any degree of serious conviction (until evidence is found in support of it).

To repeat. My MAIN qualm is with people naively suggesting atoms are ‘conscious’ with the poor defense of ‘just a different kind of conscious’ - which is nonsensical. Admittedly those who have put more thought into this don’t say such things without a well articulated reason for doing so. On forums most of what I have tended to see is a wishy-washy form of mysticism that use concepts that are clearly misunderstood and/or poorly cobbled together.

In terms of a defense of panpsychism I’d look to entropy as the ultimate underlying field upon which consciousness exists. From more ‘spiritual’ perspective I also find it reasonable to view humans as that old adage of ‘the universe trying to understand itself’ - fine, no problem there either.

If however we’re talking about atoms having a property of consciousness and then when these atoms accumulate in certain constitutions what we know as ‘consciousness’ emerges ... well, then it’s emergence we’re talking about just in the same sense that every other phenomenal experience of humans is held as a nascent item - framed for the sake of differentiation/orientation as x or y.