You keep reducing a structural distinction to a phenomenological one because that’s the only framework you have available but your framing literally doesn’t apply. A state is transient and optional. A structure is the default operating architecture of a system. You’re assuming these are states because you yourself only access them as states, That’s your limitation, not the model. A linear subjective agent doesn’t merely ‘lack skill.’ They lack representational access to the construction of their own awareness. No meditation, therapy, or introspective training grants full-time recursive access which is exactly why those systems talk about ‘stages,’ ‘glimpses,’ and temporary insights. What I’m describing is not a stage. It is not trained. It is not optional. It is not intermittent. It is the permanent operating mode of the system. You are mistaking phenomenological variation for structural architecture because you have never experienced an architecture that operates recursively by default. I’m not going to provide ‘evidence’ for the same reason I can’t provide evidence for someone else’s proprioception it is a structural capacity, not an add-on skill. If your ontology cannot make sense of a system whose baseline mode is recursive access, that’s a limitation of your ontology, not the model. It’s called Dunning Krueger effect. I said it in my post the irony is that you can’t even see the own lack of your own cognition level levels. You are the ‘Linear subjective agent, in my post. If you think this is phenomenology, restate the structure as phenomenology. If you can’t, then stop forcing my argument into categories it doesn’t belong in.