Ben,

It's also a particularly Western, object oriented, reductionist view. That we can explain everything in terms of the components, the atoms, the individuals.

Consider the Western concept of time is that the future is in front and the past behind, because we see ourselves as discrete entities, moving through our context, toward the future and away from the past.

While the Eastern and Native American view is of the past in front and the future behind, because the past and what is in front are known, the the future and what is behind are unknown. Which accords with the reality that we see events after they occur, than the energy transistions to other events.

Which is a more contextual view, in which the entity is a function of context and not separate from it.

Now if we were to break this relationship into all its possible various components, than they would be distinct, because we made them so.

Yet that is deconstruction, not evolution. The skeleton, not the seed.

What produces this reality isn't just ever smaller parts interacting and creating emergent levels of complexity, but cycles of dynamic expansion and consolidation, laying down ever more integrated and thus complex feedback loops. As they build up, break down, get mixed around, than build up again.

Consider the brain/mind; Where do we distinguish between the layers? As you point out about the anthropocene, the emergent layers than feedback into rearranging the lower levels to further their intentions.

Where in the object/context relationship, does the observed end and the observer begin? If, by observing something, don't we affect it, as QM would argue? We do intercept the signals emanating from the event, which is part of the effect of the event as the input becomes output.

We can't separate the node from its network.

As you point out, the eliminativist is as provincial, biased and blind to their biases, as anyone else.