I think you're coming at it from the wrong angle, and also not taking your own logic far enough.

Any knowledge or intuition we have about the universe must ultimately stem from our perceptions. And so it's imperative that our epistemology is a perception-first epistemology. I'll explain what I mean.

As I think you know, most of what we say we "know" is actually just a mental model. We might call this "functional" or "predictive" knowledge, or simply "secondary" knowledge. Birds, bees, trees, atoms and black holes, even our concept of ourselves, are of this type. They help us think about the universe, but they are ultimately just ideas, and aren't actually "real".

But there is one thing we do know about the universe in a literal sense, and that is our perceptions themselves. Our perceptions are real, regardless of the stories we make up about them as part of our functional / predictive / secondary knowledge. We know, not as a mental model, but in a literal, experiential sense, what it feels like to be us right now. Another way of phrasing it is that we know beyond all doubt that our universe / reality is one in which it is possible to feel the way we feel right now.

That's not just a mental model. We know that literally. And so all other knowledge or intuitions or mental models that we might have must start from there, with our perceptions. In contrast to our "functional" or "predictive" knowledge, we might refer to our perceptions as "raw" or "literal" or "primary" knowledge.

And what's important to note is that raw / literal / primary knowledge must always take precedence over functional / predictive / secondary knowledge. To do otherwise is like coming up with a scientific theory, running an experiment to test that theory, finding results that don't match the theory, but keeping the theory anyways, insisting that it must be correct, despite the evidence to the contrary.

So again, we must start with our only primary knowledge source: our perceptions.

And it's worth noting right away that many of our perceptions are not inherently meaningful, like the patterns, brightness, and colors that make up what we tend to call "sight". They may have a specific and unique quality to them, but not an inherent value as good or bad. But some perceptions do have an inherent value. And we give those perceptions labels, like pain, pleasure, happiness, and sadness.

And remember, this knowledge is not just part of a mental model, but constitutes direct, "primary" knowledge we have about the universe: Whatever else we might hypothesize about the universe, we know beyond all doubt that the universe we live in is one in which sometimes it feels good, and sometimes it feels bad.

In other words, the fact that some perceptions have inherent value is one of the only things we know for certain about the universe. Whatever mental models we might create as part of our functional / predictive / secondary knowledge, we know they are automatically wrong if they reject or fail to account for our raw / literal / primary knowledge of pleasure, pain, happiness, and sadness as an inherent value system of our reality. Because any secondary knowledge that isn't grounded in primary knowledge is no knowledge at all.

Now, all that said, let's look at it from another angle.

Certainly, as you mentioned, our bodies have evolved such that the pleasure and pain of our consciousness drives us to behave in ways that are useful to the body.

But what's interesting about that, is that if the body relies on our consciousness (and the pleasure and pain of consciousness) to influence our actions, then consciousness must be able to influence the physical world. The body would have no use for consciousness if consciousness couldn't affect the body and force it to move.

And if consciousness affects the physical world, then consciousness must in fact be a physical force, akin to gravity or electromagnetism. Perhaps it is gravity or electromagnetism. Regardless of what force it is, though, it is a force, which means consciousness, including pain, pleasure, happiness, and sadness, are all a fundamental part of what makes anything happen in the universe.

So from the body's perspective, and the perspective of the physical world in general, good and bad feelings - i.e. the value system of consciousness - are very obviously a built-in, fundamental property and mover of the universe.

You mentioned not wanting to be witless in your pursuits, but I hope you will recognize that wittingness itself is merely a derived concept, rather than a primary truth, as are pleasure and pain, and that wittingness is, therefore, at best, merely a heuristic for something of real implicit value, and that it does not act as a fundamental mover of the world as do pleasure and pain.

Believe me, none of the concepts you've raised here are new to me. And what you've said make sense to a point. But it only gets you so far. And I think what I've said above supplies a more complete picture. Think about it. Overnight if you have to.