You understand that consciousness cannot be grasped because it is always ahead of itself, intentional, vectorial etc., but in saying something like this you are attempting to illuminate the latent 'whatness' of experience rather than its 'thatness'. The image is of something darting and aspiring, a motion driven by an appetite, as if something seeks to complete itself or to become more itself, to attain the Absolute. But when it has become more itself, when it has cracked the nut and tasted the kernel, has it become any more consciousness? Do the terms less or more, intense or tranquil, deep or shallow, properly apply to consciousness or to something else, such as life, power, knowledge, feeling? Take life for the moment as the most inclusive category. Is it at all reasonable to discriminate the two, to assert that consciousness is other than an attribute of life? This would mean that however fine your phenomenology could go the result could only be a deepening of content, an integral fascination, but would say nothing at all about 'thatness', about super- or hypo-essential being. As life in act you can only pursue life, pursue it right into the mind of God, but not into that other deeper secret, the Godhead. Mind is seeking and seeking is manifestly not futile since it will always continue to bring forth wonders. It is intrinsically oriented, it is orientation itself, but the being of the endless event of seeking can have no orientation, can't be desired, and yields nothing. It can't even be recognised or acknowledged, since if it were the whole dance would stop, and mind can never stop. The Absolute doesn't embrace being, that is its world-creating flaw.