And for this reason it's an error to write them off as phlogiston, even if you proceed with describing their properties.

I'm treating emotion -- or better, somatic markers -- as a category of thing that is useful to know about. But I have not really needed to have finer distinctions than "good" or "bad", for practical purposes in teaching people how to modify their markers and change their beliefs, motivations, etc. So, if you're saying I have too broad a category, I'm saying that in practice, I haven't needed to have a smaller one.

Frankly, it seems to me that perhaps some people are quibbling about the word "emotion" because they have it labeled "bad", but I'm also using it to describe things they have labeled "good". Ergo, I must be using the word incorrectly. (I'd be happy to be wrong about that supposition, of course.)

From my perspective, though, it's a false dichotomy to split emotion in such a way -- it overcomplicates the necessary model of mind, rather than simplifying it.