The Conditional World is the Domain of Humans' Suffering

The Conditional World is the Domain of Humans' Suffering

To the conditional world
which includes our own state of mind
we may have two responses as options:

to open to The Conditional World and to experience It more keenly
to close to The Conditional World, to mute its effects in us.

The first option is to become sensitized to the world
in a sensory sense
and the second option is to be desensitized to the world
in a sensory sense.

The first option is to open intelligence
the section option is to close down intelligence.

The problem of the more sensitized, open intelligence
is that it is more open to being invaded by prongs of life,
pokey pushings of life that churn us in unpleasant ways.
Prongings and pushings that come both from both outside and from within
pronging pushings that make us want to back down
to avoid being prodded.

The problem of desensitized, densitized, closed or shrunken intelligence is that it is less competent, competent in fewer ways, clumsily regulated and sometimes, obnoxious or hostile. Desensitized, densitized, shrunken intelligence adds to the roughness of life that shock the more sensitized, open intelligence.

Desensitized, densitized intelligence makes things harder on open, sensitized intelligence.

In order for open, sensitized intelligence to continue to flower, to continue to open, to continue to increase in integrity, complexity, and grace, it must overcome both the minimizing effects of desensitized, densitized intelligence on its own flowering -- and -- the internal reaction one may have to being minimized, namely, minimizing oneself. One must also integrate and dissolve the force of complaint against the seeming stupidities of life.

Integrate, because we don't know -- the "seeming stupidities" may be right, after all.
Dissolve, because who wants to be trapped in the dilemma of it all?

Neither one nor the other
neither either nor both --
the unknown Unknown
into which higher intelligence flowers.

The way out of the trap is not to negotiate the possibilities, not so solve the difficulties, but to DISSOLVE them, to dissolve our fixation upon them without residue or backward lingering, to lift anchor and continue of the voyage of developing intelligence. Then, the adversities and adversaries to flowering point the way to transformations instead of to stagnation in the swamp of stupidities.

The Four Universal Aspects of Intelligence: The TetraSeed

Four mental faculties or aspects of mind underlie all intelligence. 

This piece is about those four aspects. Because those four aspects combine into one mind of intelligence, I have given it a name: The TetraSeed -- "tetra" meaning "four", and "seed" meaning what it obviously means.

The four focal points of the TetraSeed, in its variations, are observable, replicable, verifiable, testifiable focal points that have observable, replicable, verifiable, testifiable psychoactive properties that improve intelligence.

The psychoactive properties of the TetraSeed appear as an awakening of the different internal connections of oneself so they may be recognized and corrected, as native intelligence indicates on a focus-by-focus basis.

The word, "focus", pertains to each of the step-elements that constitute the TetraSeed Transformation Procedures, e.g., "Intending | Intending Existence".

Back to the psychoactive properties.


What is being transformed, and how so?

What's being transformed is the activity-balance between the different focal points of the TetraSeed.

The Four Internal or Left Quadrant TetraSeed Mind Elements
(upper right image is The AQAL Matrix -- term from the
"integral teaching" championed by Ken Wilber and associates
of Integral Institute -- Google-search the term.)

We tend, by our education, to work at a more or less illumined-or-oblivious degree of development -- mostly oblivious.

The words,


may seem somehow vague and obscure, not readily recognizable by themselves, individually, and in relation to each other.

This starting-observation is a good one for demonstrating the potential for a person's awakening of intelligence by contemplating and applying the TetraSeed.

Before that process of awakening, all manner of semi-conscious automatic conditioning simply runs the show, with the "monitoring self" wringing its hands over its own craziness.

The mental transformation consists of
  1. awakening and progressively steadying into focus these four focal/archetypes,
    and then 
  2. combining the focal/archetypes in every combination of twos and threes
    to awaken and enhance intelligence.

    It feels like an awakening.
  3. What happens is that submerged patternings of mind emerge in dreamlike perceptual experiences that one may recognize as ones own habitual dreamset of what life is remembered to be -- and having recognized, adjust by mere feeling-intention. Many shifts occur.

What happens is a dissolving of semi-conscious and unconscious, automatic habits of mind by recognizing all things as made of the same "ground substance" -- the consolidation of attention into the experience of persistent objects with a location and behavior along certain lines.

What happens is a shifting of felt, bodily tensions by a series of releases, a shifting that occurs merely by contemplating things in terms of The TetraSeed -- attending to an object, remembering an object, intending the existence of an object, imagining an object -- as taught in the various TetraSeed transformation procedures found under the search-term


At this point, making sense of further discussion depends on your having had experience working with the TetraSeed and TetraSeed Transformation procedures. To try to understand without that experiential background risks brain-lock.

Having had such experience and found that the TetraSeed is indeed psychoactive, you (and I) may wonder:

What is the TetraSeed, itself, made of?

After all, it's just seems to be a mental abstraction that somehow names what our mind is made of, but really -- The TetraSeed actually functions, so what is its foundation? its substance?

Something somehow becomes the four-ness of the TetraSeed that functions the way it does. Or perhaps it isn't something or anything until it appears as concrete expressions of the four elements of the TetraSeed. But a TetraSeed is made of it. What is THAT? It must always have existed and exist now and already, since it is apparently the substance and functioning of EVERYTHING.

The following diagram may help you with that contemplation.

Internal/Left Side Quadrants of the AQAL Matrix

External/Right Side Quadrants of the AQAL Matrix

Integration of the upper and lower elements (versus experiencing them in the state of haphazard development) produces a deepening of perception and normalizes and increases intelligence.

Why the TetraSeed Awakening Procedures

Here's a sample procedure to try:

The Gold Key Release

copyright 2017 Lawrence Gold

The Quandary of Human Beings is One of Competence

Competence may be defined as "consistently getting the intended result".

Indication of Incompetence: the saying, "The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions".

Frankly, this statement is poorly conceived, poorly expressed, poorly understood.

First of all, "paved"?? Pavement is an invention for smoothing the way.

So, "Good intentions smooth the way to Hell"??

Right away, that is topsy-turvy ("everything reversed") thinking; there's something "off" about it. There must be an explanation that seems to make sense of it. Let's try.

One might observe that, very often, despite good intentions, a hellish result ensues or follows. Little fires may spring up that seem to require your attention, time and energy.

A certain kind of thinking would then make the so-called, "a-priori error" -- the notion that because one thing preceded another, it caused the other. ("Post-hoc, ergo, propter hoc." -- for all you lawyers) This is very primitive thinking probably characteristic of a three-year-old stage of mental development.

The error may be expressed, "My good intentions caused the Hellish Outcomes."

It goes along with, "I caused that," as in, "Wherever I walk, outside, the moon in the sky follows me." It is a kind of egocentric thinking that acts as if everything that happens has to do with oneself." -- which, by the way, is a good way of defining the word, "narcissistic". "I caused that and I'm involved with it." It's the hypnotic, mass trance that characterizes the bulk of human cultures.

A more mature stage of development recognizes that causality emanates from many places and from anyplace at a given time. One may receive the influences of life as well as influence life. This is called, "being sentient", all you beings. This recognition allows for a relative degree of rest or ease in the midst of circumstances, and for a decrease of vigilance, in general. Hellish outcomes may seem to come Out of the Blue, but sometimes, not.

So, as a generality, "The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions" may seem to be true, some of the time, but it says nothing about the causal relation of the good intentions to the Hellish Experience.

Back to, "The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions."

Where's the next weak point?

It's the inherent, "I can't help it," of the saying. "No matter what we do, things turn out badly." Has to be that. After all, good intentions are all about "helping it", and if they end up under our feet, our "hero" has failed. (Heros are all about "shared good intentions", good intentions shared between and among us. A hero is a champion of our good intentions. In this anti-hero culture, villains are called, or positioned as, heros. This is an Orwellian perversity.) For all of these reasons, "I can't help it," is a common pose. It's the pose of "excused resignation", excused mediocrity. "I can't help it," sets the stage for incompetence.

So, "mediocrity and incompetence, I can't help it," are the sagacious meaning of the saying, "The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions." How sagacious?

Here's another meaning:

Creative movement in any direction creates a contrast with our memory of the state of things. Contrast intensifies experience. You go for the right and you perceive everything that's in the way of things going right; you perceive everything that's wrong. (Let's not get captived by the wimpy argument that, "there is no real right or wrong; everything's relative". Not altogether true.) Everything that's organized for an outcome different from the one we intend (including our own automatic reactions and emotional conditioning) we experience as unwelcome, as friction, as opposition, as frustration. There's both an external and an internal burn.

The contrast-burn may be a hellish experience.

So, the saying, "The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions," is incomplete, in itself, and therefore, misleading. Another line is needed: "When you are going through hell, keep going." (Winston Churchill) His saying implies emergence out of hell. It completely changes the thrust of the saying.

The thrust of this saying, when understood this way, points to increasingly higher degrees of competence paid for by an ordeal of transformation (the contrast-burn). I can help it if I persist, learn, remember, attend to it, and stay purposefully intent -- in short, evolve awake) -- that's one part -- and, with that, also recognize that I am working against forces that may make things rather unpleasant, especially if I fail to groom myself regularly of those befouling effects.

Thus, the deck is stacked against the evolution of humanity by our own aversion to the burn of transformation. The burn of transformation is the price paid for competence and superior competence. Thus, the expressions, "taking pains," and "paying the price" or "paying ones dues". The only ones willing to experience that are those with a compelling creative drive; the rest cower -- or oppose.

The Gold Key Release

copyright 2017 Lawrence Gold

A Vignette in the Spirit of Thomas Hanna

A Vignette in the Spirit of Thomas Hanna
for those who recognize his voice in writing
and a point of interest to those who don't ...

The Wave 1 training was held in a large, carpeted lounge room on the campus of Dominican College, in San Rafael, California. The walls of the room were lined on three sides with lounge chairs. A low, padded "Feldenkrais" table stood at the center, a low, four-legged stool, next to it. The stool had a circular cushion on it that always made the sound of escaping gas as one sat down on it. That was Dr. Hanna's stool.,.tweaked.mp3

Into that room, at the far end from the door, near the wall, to the left of the rolling blackboard, Dr. Hanna (everyone else called him, Tom) had placed a stand from which dangled, suspended by a short chain, a human skeleton, who, he told us, was named, Darwin.

It happened that on the fourth of July, that summer, as we filed into the room for the beginning of the days training, we noticed something different about Darwin. There, at the far end of the room, next to the rolling blackboard, Darwin wore about his shoulders, an American flag.

Thomas Hanna was the first developer of the form of clinical somatic education known as, Hanna Somatic Education -- and, a total rascal. He was known for once having had dinner guests wait for dinner until midnight, while he played the guitar and sang -- only for the chili con carne to be too hot to eat.

More written about Thomas Hanna in, A Paean to Thomas Hanna
by the same author.

The Outlaw Lawmakers, Part 2 - One Neat Little Package

The so-called "Conservative" wing of American Politics is not properly called, "conservative". Nor is it properly called, "regressive", as it once might have been. It appears to me that the proper descriptor and name is, "destructives". They appear not to be conservative, but destructive. They call themselves, Republicans, but that also seems to be a false name; they seem intent upon bringing down the republic called, The United States of America.

 Click the image to view the video.
Click the image, above, to view the video.

Once, the Republican party was a progressive party (Lincoln's time); then, the party of traditional values and of the Religious Right. Now, the Republicans are the party of anarchy and Religious Hypocrisy -- anarchy because they so flagrantly violate the US Constitution.

Evidence of their anarchic values appears in their refusal to hold hearings on a legitimate Supreme Court nominee by the current sitting President and by their overstepping their legislative role by communicating with the government of Iran to disregard the President of the United States. This is a violation of the "separation of power/checks and balances" written into the Constitution of the United States. They are violating the Constitution, and that constitutes anarchy.


They have betrayed such religious values as charity, compassion, family values and protection of the vulnerable; look at their record of behavior and evidence of intent: They repealed legislation that would have led to the prosecution of Wall Street abusers of Capitalism, and the like (grinning like fat cats while we, the electorate, witlessly looked on). They want to cut social service programs, such as Social Security and Medicare; want to undermine family and social health supported by Planned Parenthood, oppose equal pay for women as for men and sane gun control, defund progressive entertainment and educational media such as PBS, want to perpetuate prisons-for-profit and incarceration for victimless crimes to perpetuate and increase wealth disparity by rigging the legal system in favor of the ultra-rich, to promote and protect a business and banking environment that has already brought disaster to many, world-wide. They deny the scientific evidence of geophysical and biophysical changes that point to planetary climate-in-transition.

They appear to be in rebellion against the very religious values they inherited and espouse, the religious values of their electorate, wolves in sheep's clothing.

Their political campaigns commonly involve false allegations and misrepresentations of their political opponents. They are unscrupulous liars operating in a political climate in which many consider that behavior acceptable, "politics as usual", without honor and undeserving of honor. Such people seek the prestige of the political office they hold, rather than bring prestige to it.

They are not progressives; they are destructives.

Sharing the destructive motivation of the ultra-Right are the members of the electorate who support it.

Their motivation for destructiveness is different. Whereas the motivations of the ultra-Right is self-promotion at the expense of many, the motivations of their supporters is destruction of a political/economic system that has failed them. They wrongly identify the cause of their disadvantage as the more progressive movement of American Politics, whereas it is the "political insiders" who perpetuate the dysfunction of the American Political system who should be brought down.

The electorate apparently lack the power of intelligent discrimination, operating instead, with intellectual laziness, on the basis of misinformation fed them by the corrupt political establishment and the emotions set ablaze by it, with emotions inflamed by the dark visions and cheap, violent thrills provided by the entertainment media. They don't look deeper, and that's their fault. If they had truly religious values, they'd see the situation for what it is. But this society has been largely secularized, without the guiding, benign vision of legitimate religious values, before it was corrupted by a self-serving Religious Right, divisive and having compassion only for their own, in the name of religious values -- or lacking the courage to take on the Destructives, in public.

So, they play into the hands of the corrupt political establishment, the "Political Destructives" who call themselves (and would have everyone else call them) "Conservatives", and The Religious Right, who would obey the letter of religious scriptures, as they selectively interpret it, rather than the spirit.

It's time for a righteous re-adjustment of the whole world.

Americans and The Rest of the World Need a Re-Awakening of Conscience

News on the State of the Union, Regardless of President or Party

Here's the news:

It's degenerated since the 60s. Sorry.

Here are some indicators:

Nowadays, people say someone is funny when they act silly or ridiculous. That's "funny" in the sense of, "odd". It's, "immature" or "stupid" as a synonym for "funny".

However, there's a more important meaning for the word, funny.

"Funny" means, it makes you laugh -- not just smile in a sickly, sort of stupid way. Laugh.

In that sense, the word, "hilarious" doesn't mean, "really silly or ridiculous".

It means, "makes you laugh really hard." A lot. It doesn't mean, "exaggeratedly silly" or "excessively stupid."

Because people settle for something that's just odd or ridiculous and call it funny means that the standard for funny has degraded. People misuse the words, funny and hilarious.

And because a sense of humor is the sign of high intelligence, it also indicates that the intelligence of the culture has declined.

Believe it or not, music is supposed to make you FEEL something. It's not about sounds; it's about feeling. By feeling, I don't mean the pounding of the beat. I don't even mean emotion, necessarily. There's a felt flavor to music and makes it possible to distinguish the Beatles from The Rolling Stones and Beethoven from Mozart. The roots of music were about feeling. Tribal song, tribal dance. It was not about "sounds". Sound serves feeling; it doesn't substitute for it.

Today's music tends to be mechanical. There are even drum machines used by some bands. Most drummers are too loud and don't know the difference between "rhythm" and "beat". Beat is repetitive; rhythm is syncopated (know what that means?); "beat" just pounds things home; "rhythm" makes you want to move with the music. Good drummers are few and far between. In general, music in public venues is too loud; people want to "feel" something and because the music doesn't make them feel something musical, they make up in volume what is lacking in musicality.

If you don't know what I mean, that proves my point.

Dance isn't something you make yourself do to conform to the beat of the music. It's something that music makes you want to do.

The use of synthesizers and computer-based "enhancements" has allowed people to substitute "sound" for feeling, the way stupidity or ridiculousness substitutes for "funny".

Just as it takes higher intelligence to have a sense of humor, it takes awakened capacity for feeling to appreciate music.

Those who argue with or resist these points have neither.

The creation of more and more laws points to one thing: people are unwilling or incapable of maturely regulating their own behavior. It's then necessary for regulation to come from outside. With more laws come more police, more lawyers, and more prisons. It's a sign of the immaturity of the populace and their inability or unwillingness to regulate themselves.

The really immature individuals seek, "deregulation". I'm speaking of business, here.

Just "deregulate" your children and see how well they mature. Such deregulation leads to a generation of spoiled incompetents -- as we see, so often, these days. They may "mean well", but they're incompetent and incapable of following a purpose through to the end.

The irony is, those who make the laws are generally as spoiled, self-serving and incompetent. The term for that condition is, "corrupt".

The teaching of self-regulation comes under the heading of "morality". Morality is inherent, not a social artifice. It used to be the job of religion to awaken a sense of morality, but with the decline of religion has come a decline of a moral sense. What passes for religion, these days, is actually codes of behavior without a moral sense (other than guilt or fear of being found out). These codes of behavior are about obedience, not about ones own wisdom. Some people think, "integrity", is a matter of conforming to socially sanctioned codes of behavior. Such people have no sense of integrity and can't tell what is wholesome (by feel) from what is unwholesome. They are suckers who elect corrupt politicians.

Another irony is that some teachers of children and school boards are equally incompetent. They commonly "pass" students who have failed to learn to avoid "hurting their self-esteem". Such teachers fail to understand the meaning of, "self-esteem". They confuse "self-esteem" with "other-esteem" (social status or approval); self-esteem comes from ones own sense of integrity and competence. Self-esteem can't be taken away by someone else because it is self-authenticating.

The United States of America should be called, "The United States of Money".

Money unites the greedy.

The general climate of business, particularly big business, but also of some entrepreneurs is, "it isn't personal; it's business", and anything goes as long as it's not against the letter of the law and can't be prosecuted. However, if often goes against the spirit of the law, which is to say, the spirit of fairness.

Thus, mediocrity, cheating, and general meanness are common in business culture. Selfishness is common. Exploitation is common. Anything for a buck, as long as you don't make yourself legally vulnerable.

People of that ilk like to believe, "it's OK as long as it's in the contract" and the contract has been written or vetted by attorneys.

Trust in business is at a low. How do we know? We know by the prevalence of attorneys involvement in business. You don't need an attorney if you and your business associates (and that includes clients and customers) operate in a spirit of fairness.

The way of doing business I have just described is utterly stupid. It's commonly said that the Stock Market run on fear and greed -- which is to say, that the Stock Market runs on emotion. The economy runs on emotion. When people fear to trust or harbor grudges against companies who deserve it, they are reluctant to do business. That mistrust and reluctance color all businesses, even those conducted fairly and ethically. The result? Two things: the involvement of attorneys and the slowing down of the economy. See? The climate of The United States of Money is utterly stupid and self-destructive. But those of that ilk don't see it that way, and so are utterly stupid in that and other ways.

One more point in that area: on consumerism

Consumerism runs on the belief that acquiring goods makes one feel better.

The reason it may make one feel better is that high-quality goods embody a kind of fulfillment of creative intention and so attract attention. Attention on something well done makes one feel better. That's the whole virtue of art (although mediocre "social commentary" art and wretched art are increasingly, it seems, common). Unfortunately, consumers of that ilk are themselves mediocre and incapable of excellence. Their intention is either scattered and weak or confined to limited areas of life (such as, "making money") and incapable of balancing multiple areas of life; so, they always feel scattered and disturbed. So they buy things to center their attention on something well done and feel better. It's an addiction -- an addiction of mediocre individuals to the products produced by somewhat better individuals.

Such individuals may become "money vampires" so they can acquire goods and social standing that temporarily make them feel better. They get an adrenaline rush every time they make a "killing" -- kind of like vampires. It's a temporary feeling. It's never finally enough, and so they have to do it again and again. That's the "one tenth of 1%" who own 90% of the wealth.

Now you know what makes the super rich run.

Make of all this what you will. If you have an argument with any of it, make sure it's an intelligent argument and not just a way of defending your opinion of yourself, when you know better. People who argue against it aren't playing with a full deck.

Here's the "full deck": mature mastery of ones own intention, to the degree of consistently getting intended results; the ability to direct and maintain attention where they want it; the ability to learn and remember; and the capacity for imagination -- all to comparable degrees. A full deck leads to the natural development of competence, morality, and wisdom because one feels and recognizes the consequences of ones actions.

Bear that in mind when you think about "Conservatives" and "Liberals" -- two labels with little intelligent meaning, anymore, that people use to avoid looking at the details of developments of the State of the Union.

TetraSeed Transcendental Naked Singularity Lawrence Gold

Facebook: Lawrence.Gold.Somatics | 505 819-0858
Clinical Somatic Education | a New Discipline in the Field of Health Care
#somatic education
#intelligent-self empowerment
#personal development TetraSeed Transcendental Naked Singularity Lawrence Gold

copyright 2017 Lawrence Gold

Spiritual Aspirants! : You are NOT the Witness, only!

The true Witness learns absolutely nothing from experience.
True (unbiased or pure) Witnessing is the meeting of
absolute ignorance with experience.

If the Witness spoken of in various dharmic teachings is a "something" that one may be or not be, that is not the Witness. If you can locate it, it's not the Witness. If you have to find it by some effort of intuitive location, that is not the Witness. If you have to remember it, it is a something, and therefore, not the Witness. The Witness is not an object that can be located, it is not a state that can (or must be) achieved, it is not even a truth or "true something".

Those are all objects of attention, subjects of imagination, things about which you may have a "spiritual intention", something somehow about which you remember something that is still, right now, somehow true.

So, anything you may do in response to hearing, "You are not the body-mind; you are the witness," ain't it.

All actions based on that "dharmic" assertion involve a kind of inversion, not only an inversion of attention in search of The Witness (with a capital, "T"), that that dharmic assertion says that we ARE. It involves an inversion of perspective, sort of analogous to the kind of upside-down image directed by a camera lens upon its photoreceptor chip or film. Such an image is upside down, as are the images the fall upon the retinas of our eyes.

With the lens of perspective, the inversion occurs differently. It occurs according to which direction you are looking through the lens of perspective:

  • You may look for the root of your own perspective, yourself as Witness, in which case you are acting as a seeker for some recognizable object, or "super-subject", or
  • you may look at experience from your own perspective, in which case you are being the Witnessing, but biased.

I acknowledge that those words may not make sense to you, or seem, "off" -- unless you have directly realized what they point to. However, I can provide some handy pointing-out instructions to something verry interesting. So, let's explore it, some more.

Here's a possible intellectual contrast that may provide an interesting experience.

You are NOT the Witness | You are altogether the entirety of what is being Witnessed.

What does that mean, "the entirety of what is being Witnessed"?

It means, not only how you appear to others, "witnessed" by them; it also means how you appear to yourself, what you experience as yourself; and it also means everything and everyone that you, personally, are witnessing. It is "the entirety of what is being Witnessed."

We can't go further until you have, yourself, explored each of these four perspectives, not by thinking about them, but by looking to them in your own experience:

  1. how you imagine you are seen by others
  2. how you experience yourself
  3. everything and anything you experience in the moment
  4. everyone and anyone you experience in the moment
... the entirety of what is being Witnessed.

The "Witness" doesn't know, "witnessing",
even in the most ordinary sense.
The "Witness" only "knows" what is witnessed
 -- and not as mental knowledge.

The ability to awaken and balance these four perspectives depends upon relative freedom from any one of them, so that attention exists in a state of impartial balance. It's called, "non-attachment" in Buddhist teaching. Non-attachment isn't egoic renunciation, but easy freedom. If it ain't easy, it's not non-attachment.

It doesn't take long, perhaps only seconds if you can quickly get an impression of each of those perspectives.


Now, if you did that action pattern effectively, then you noticed something:

To experience yourself as the entirety of what is being Witnessed intuitively drops you into a "background" position which is formless, present, deeply familiar, transcendental and natural.  It feels like your pre-birth condition.

Some might, with poor use of language, name it, The Witness. But there is no, "The", to it. It is what is intuited as everything is Witnessed. It is a tacit intuition produced not by being sought, but by witnessing everything THAT IS -- EXCEPT ITSELF (because there is no self, in itself, to be found)! It is to already-BE Witnessing.

Such tacit Witnessing includes the moving person-entity, includes the Do-er, includes all notions of self or Self, includes all sensory experiencing of others, includes all emotional and mental stress and the thought formations and imaginings that arise from them. It is all-inclusive but also identified by (yes, by) an individual perspective. Unique perspective consists of unique content confronting pre-birth formless intuition.

This intuiting has always been present to experience, but the interpretation of experience by memory-mind has been that the Witness is other than what is being Witnessed and can or must be sought.  But it's the wrong direction. Witnessing intuiting experience is comprehended innerly and outerly, directly. Witnessing does not, "look for"; it is simply present. It has always, already found, and in the finding, is Witnessing. Witnessing is found in the obvious, not elsewhere special.

The Entirety of What is Being Witnessed
is not known by selective word-memory.
It is forever the known
being Witnessed 
the unknown unknown.

Now, from a somatic perspective, to say that we are the Witness-only is to say that we are the sensory being, only. It is to say that we are not the "do-er"; we are not the motor (motional) personal entity. It is to say that we are the Witness, only. 

From the somatic perspective, that makes no sense. There is no sensory experience without a motor component. Attention gets directed as a motor action, guided by memory.

If there is no memory, there can not be said to be any "witnessing" happening, since experience would not register. "Register" means, "register in memory". No memory, no sense of experience. Short-term memory counts.

If there is no motor response, there is no sensation of anything happening. The first motor response is directing attention, generally outwardly, but also inwardly, if we so direct it. It is the primal action of, "arising from rest": we orient ourselves. The second motor response is to get ready for action; to get ready involves organizing ourselves for action. The third response is to move into action. It's all motor response.

There can be no sense of Witnessing without at least some short-term memory, some sort of motor response. 

Therefore, to say, "You are not the body-mind; you are the Witness, only," puts you into a kind of inward trance of seeking for a Witness that is not already you. 

The Witness is, in spiritual teachings, said to be eternal and untouched by experience, unborn. But seeking the Witness in order to be It, the feeling of seeking, and the feeling of the result of such seeking, are temporary. Therefore, seeking the Witness in that way cannot be fruitful or true.

On the other hand, if we adopt the somatic perspective, "I am the entirety of what is being Witnessed, in my experience," (which is all we can attest to), we experience "the correct inversion of the lens image", which is that we are what we witness; we intuit that Witnessing is our own, very familiar and very comfortable "unborn" Nature not separate from and witnessing everything, but inherent in everything. Witnessing and what is witnessed ("what is experienced, the experiencer, and experiencing") are one and the same. There ain't no surprises, just a somatic return to a certain, very familiar, very comfortable, very natural tacit self-nature completely in accord with both born existence, being "the do-er", and the high spiritual teachings.

That ain't too much to ask, is it?