Lately I call it “situation research,” and it’s more finished than otherwise. If you are curious, you can read about it here: A synopsis and discussion of "ontocubism"
But I don’t see it as having political or social relevance. It is “only foolosophy.”
Situation research is largely about getting a grip on terms like “consciousness.” To me it’s not like we are doing a pseudo-scientific investigation of essences or the “true meaning” of this or that sign. It’s more like a discussion of how we might minimize confusion.
IMV, the sign “consciousness” tends to be overloaded. It vaguely means something like “self-consciousness” and “intelligence” and yet also the “presence” or “quality” or “is-ness” of the world for a particular organism in the world that is therefore called “conscious.”
You say you agree with me that the postulation of qualia is confused, but then you define “qualia.” I find it cleaner and more efficient to talk instead of the quality of the world itself as it manifests to a particular organism within that world.
My claim is not representational. I’m suggesting that I find it better to avoid the internal/external framework. Yes, we need to account for the “from-a-point-of-view-ness” or “perspectivity” of perception, but I prefer to do this without invoking internal representations.