Panpyschism vs. Emergentism

Emergentism and pansychism are two monistic theories of mind somewhat at odds with each other. I am wondering which one makes more sense to people on this forum. Emergentism claims that mind forms from physical properties at lower levels. Somehow, a software-like program (the mind) forms from physical constituents (mainly, neurobiological phenomena). Of course the question is, how is "mind" emerging from non-mind? There is a seeming hidden dualism, whereby the subjective experience is leftover as some other new "phenomena" that is different from the properties it is emerging from.

Panpsychism takes a stance that matter has some subjective quality to it. Of course, it does not mean that matter has anything like a human consciousness, but that it simply "experiences" the world at some primitive level. This actually solves the problem quite nicely of mind-body, because one can posit irreducible minds as the basis of this subjective "what it feels like". The kicker here, is you have to swallow the notion that non-animal constituents of nature have subjective qualities. Here is a theory I have stated in a previous post, that would go along with this idea:

All panpsychism proposes that consciousness is irreducible to matter. Matter is itself some form of primitive mind. Minds that combine and communicate can form more complex minds that make a more complex whole through some sort of language (semiotics? laws of nature? etc.). These new languages that occur between irreducible minds form complex minds. Biological organisms can be considered a kind of language whereby genetics interplays in a certain way whereby there is random change (mutation) along with rule-based material language (genetic transcription, protein formation,etc.) that keeps them existing, evolving, and reproducing. The combining of biologically linguistic behavior and irreducible minds form more complex animal minds. Due to the particular nature of the language of biological processes, biological organisms can have a seemingly infinite amount of complexity compared to more primitive minds (inorganic matter). Biologically complex minds can combine even further to networks and language complex enough to bring the irreducible minds into an animal cognitive state due to the very intricate language combined with irreducible mind. An animal cognitive state that can further externalize language and thus become "self-aware" can be said to have something like a human consciousness. Our human consciousness, being based on conceptual and linguistic understanding, is a communication system that has been externalized from networks of irreducible minds in the brain and body, to irreducible minds from one brain and body to another brain and body of our species in our particular biological niche.

So, with this idea in mind, which makes more sense for a monist theory, emergentism or panpsychism? In emegentism, there is no real account of how subjectivity derives from non-subjectivity ("where" is this inner state?). In Pansychism, one has to posit that everything has a subjective quality. Which one are you willing to bite the bullet on?