Peter and Gaynor raise some questions, which I will try to shed some light on.
 First, I think Peter’s description of Going without Going invite just the right level of appreciation. The idea here is that we limit ourselves tremendously when we accept the usual linear orientation to time, in which one moment unfolds into the next. By slowing time down, and also by changing the way the self ‘owns’ the experience of walking (the foot comes down first) we call all this into question. The exercise helps show us how closely connected the self is to linear time. But of course, it ‘shows’ us this only as we do the exercise. This is not a conclusion we can arrive at abstractly.
 The experience in this exercise is closely related to the idea of the founding story and the founding identity. The founding story is ‘here I am.” That gives us our founding identity. We can only claim that identity when we make it the subject of a story, because the momentum of the story is what makes the story seem true. This is a little like a powerful speaker, addressing a crowd. What he says may not make that much sense, but he catches you up in it. The founding story is like that. It insists that we have to believe it, and we ‘go along’. We ‘go along’ in the same dimension of time that the self sets up, which is the dimension that Going without Going challenges.
The relation between founding self and witness is worth exploring. It is a good topic for using the search capacities of the CD: look up some of the discussions of the witness. Look especially in some unexpected places. For instance, on p. 244 the text suggests we fail to bear witness to time and space. How does this relate to bearing witness to ‘reality’?
Gaynor, I believe the idea of ‘witness’ in Turiya Yoga is perhaps quite different, as comes out in your mention of the two selves. Does that create any tension or difficulty?
I will leave discussion of ‘cones’ for another post.
Jack
FInally