Gottlob Frege influenced everyone, also Edmund Husserl who followed Frege especially by adopting his distinction between logic and psychology (cp. Frege’s “Sinn und Bedeutung”) which led Husserl to his kind of phenomenology.
And this is partly why the split between Continental existentialism, and Anglo empiricism, post WW2 became (mind) set.
No. (1.) I would not go so far and speak of a “split”, and (2.) there was not only an English or, as you say, an Anglo empirism but also a German or, as you say, a Continental empirism. The Berliner Kreis (Berlinese Circle, a.k.a. Berliner Gesellschaft für empirische Philosophie) and the Wiener Kreis (Vienese Circle) founded the Neupositivismus (Neopositivism), also known as Logischer Empirismus (Logical Empirism).
Consciousness is the immediately findable total content of the spiritual and emotional (affective) experience.
“Immediately findable total content…”
Ummm…?? 
The term “immediately findable total content” means that the total content of the spiritual and emotional experience can be immediately found and, for example, communicated to others. Not all content is always present. Forgotten content, for example, is not present anymore, and some parts of the forgotten content come back sometimes, … and so on.
So consciousness, “spiritual and emotional content”, is “found” … by what?
JSS,
By what? The soul, the seat of consciousness.
“Soul” is too vague to be used in an analytical definition (but then so is “spiritual experience”).
I did not say “is found” but “can be found” or “is immediately findable”, namely by the owner of the consciousness, philosophically said: by the subject. This is important, because the owner of the consciousness does not always immediately find the spiritual and emotional content.
Biologically and especially neurologically said, the consciousness is part of the brain.
The conscious parts of the brain can be found in the reason brain (light blue => 4), in the emotion brain (red => 3), and in the Kleinhirn (cerebellum [pink => 2]).
But because of the fact that we are talking about this more philosophically, we have to talk about the owner of the consciousness: the subject.
“The owner” and “the soul” are pretty much the same terms and don’t really tell us much of anything. Are you certain that the consciousness is not “the owner”? If not, who/what is “the owner”? Precisely what is it that is potentially finding that emotional content? What is it doing when not finding it?
One can also say that the consciousness itself is the owner - it depends on the so-called “point of view”. This was the exact reason why I opened a thread dealing with a “superconsciousness”. Do you remember?
JSS,
(Not you Arm, not in the mood for your shenanigans) MM wrote
A thought, the vast memory of the soul has no emotional context due to a conflict with the soul’s primary function to process emotions, the pinnacle of experiences.
What if emotions are the source of consciousness? What type of being or machine could convert an emotion into an electric energy signal?
It seems that you are in the mood for your shenanigans.
Arm,
You are wrongly fixated on the brain, sorry.
Emotions emanate from thoughts and thoughts are electrical signals firing in the brain
Stop derailing this thread, Maniacal. Personal attacks are not needed here. And if you really want to be in the mood for your own shenanigans, then do it in another thread - not in my thread.
Perceptual sensations are what is firing, processing in the brain. Show me proof that that is where a thought, a reaction takes place.
Being told that you are wrong is an attack, are you a democrat? I have been speaking to the content so stop ragging Arm.