Trying to situate 'emergent learning', it struck me that we need to contrast it with 'instrumental learning'.

Emergent learning is new, creative,surprising, unexpected, and could contribute to the creation of new knowledge, so its a domain of 'knowledge creation affordances' as it were.

Instrumental learning is reproductive, predictable, and contributes to the transmission / dissemination of knowledge (and maybe to the preservation of knowledge too).

The distinction is not as clear cut as that though. These two 'affordance domains' overlap: it is quite possible to transmit and even preserve emergent knowledge. It probably requires a different mode though. Modes like story telling, and metaphor (both verbal and via the use of other arts - dance, graphics, music, etc) can contribute - the point it that they are all 'open' modes, because they are polysemic (they can be interpreted in different ways), and probably more synaesthetic, or at least more explicitly synaesthetic (they involve meaning and associations across a large range of senses).

Instrumental learning on the other hand tends to be more convergent, and limited, to maximise its exchange value, i.e. the affordances of transmission and use independent of subject and context.

So, (two?) different kinds of learning, with different affordances, and different ways in which they are 'transcribed' into artefacts (forumulae, stories, etc) which maximise their particular kind of exchange value - varying in richness, conciseness, association, and convergence/divergence.