I’m not exactly familiar with Kant’s work (this is the first time I actually looked seriously into his ideas), but the first thing that jumped at me was that “functions crucial for mental, knowledge-generating activity are spatio-temporal processing of, and application of concepts to, sensory inputs.” Which to me implies that, according to Kant, it’s mind that “is bound by temporality if not by spatial dimensions” and not consciousness. Then again, from my very brief dive into it, his writings on mind and consciousness remind me of Bible and other similar literature — as many readers so many interpretations.
Anyway, that quote pretty much explains why “cognitive scientists point to lots of other aspects of consciousness too, such as the degrees of attention.” They simply don’t realize (yet) that the aspects they are talking about pertain to mind and awareness, which is a function of mind and completely different from consciousness.
I won’t go into “self” because that’s a very unfortunate concept (as in easily misunderstood and twisted into what suits particular interpretation — see e.g. disputes between Buddhism and Hinduism where it’s essentially the only point of strife, even though both philosophies are correct in their argumentation and the conflict exists merely due to different definitions of “self”, if I get it right), but I can definitely say that consciousness and unification and continuity of our personal identity are two different things. Case in point — people with amnesia, hard-core schizophrenics, or children, who still didn’t learn to associate “I” with their subjective existence — none of them lacks the notion of a “subjective person” (for lack of better term), i.e. all of them are conscious and can identify as a “subjective unit”, even though their personal identity may be disunited or noncontinuous (thus, the source of true identity lies with consciousness, the rest are learned appropriations, or “a story we tell about ourselves,” as you say). Consciousness, on the other hand, is always singular, united, and continuous.
As a side note, consciousness is continuous even without awareness. It’s usually a really rare event (well, it may be a common thing for master meditators or folks really versed in lucid dreaming as it happens during the non-REM deep sleep, but for the rest of us, I would say, it’s definitely a unique experience — nevertheless, verifiable) when one manages to catch the “consciousness of absence” (which can be easily mistaken for “absence of consciousness”, thus also Descartes’ grand faux pas with his most famous statement) .
As for the meanings inherent in the fabric of the world — I agree with existentialism that we struggle with coming “to terms with the condition of Geworfenheit, of having been thrown into an absurd world (without values or meaning) not of [our] own making.” That condition, however, originates in our stories. If you throw all those stories away, you’ll be left with what is, and then it becomes obvious that it’s merely story-based human society that is absurd, not the “creation” or world itself. Thus, also the inherent meanings become apparent. Simply speaking, meaning equals function. Life lives, gravity attracts, etc. Simple as that.
Anyway, I look forward to you upcoming articles. Especially the one about unconditional, spiritual love. TBH, I would be hard pressed to even define what love is, not to mention that I seem to be pretty good at rationalizations (yes, I’m that good at bullshitting myself :D), so I’m yet to find unconditionality (is that even a word?).
