Comments on: Comments on Lozowick (LoudSue) http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/05/22/comments-on-lozowick-loudsue/ Debriefing the Gurdjieff work Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:41:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: nemo http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/05/22/comments-on-lozowick-loudsue/comment-page-1/#comment-36167 nemo Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:29:09 +0000 http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/?p=1760#comment-36167 we commented on this already http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/06/02/work-on-self/ we commented on this already
http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/06/02/work-on-self/

]]> By: Emily http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/05/22/comments-on-lozowick-loudsue/comment-page-1/#comment-36157 Emily Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:34:05 +0000 http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/?p=1760#comment-36157 Work on self is different from work on others in that one is transformed by the wok itself, not by having anybody else work on you. Gurdjieff's work ended when he died. Gold's work is Gold's work, Lozowick's work is Lozowick's work, your work is yours and my work is mine and so on. Work on self is different from work on others in that one is transformed by the wok itself, not by having anybody else work on you. Gurdjieff’s work ended when he died. Gold’s work is Gold’s work, Lozowick’s work is Lozowick’s work, your work is yours and my work is mine and so on.

]]> By: nemo http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/05/22/comments-on-lozowick-loudsue/comment-page-1/#comment-36130 nemo Mon, 31 May 2010 11:37:16 +0000 http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/?p=1760#comment-36130 The idea of 'work on self' is too much of an abstraction invented with a hidden Gurdjieff agenda. Best to stop using it. Remember that Gurdjieff was basically a kind of right wing ideologue whose take on 'work' resembles that of capitalist expoiters, and he was in fact ambiguous about slavery, thinking abolition a mistake. The use of the idea of 'work' to describe spiritual practice is therefore a play on the idea of 'surplus value' and its extraction from 'workers'. Yogis don't need this! Say goodbye to it. The idea of ‘work on self’ is too much of an abstraction invented with a hidden Gurdjieff agenda. Best to stop using it.
Remember that Gurdjieff was basically a kind of right wing ideologue whose take on ‘work’ resembles that of capitalist expoiters, and he was in fact ambiguous about slavery, thinking abolition a mistake.

The use of the idea of ‘work’ to describe spiritual practice is therefore a play on the idea of ‘surplus value’ and its extraction from ‘workers’.

Yogis don’t need this! Say goodbye to it.

]]> By: nemo http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/05/22/comments-on-lozowick-loudsue/comment-page-1/#comment-36120 nemo Sat, 29 May 2010 17:39:22 +0000 http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/?p=1760#comment-36120 This is not very clear: rewrite this to separate the quotes and commentary. This is not very clear: rewrite this to separate the quotes and commentary.

]]> By: Steve http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/05/22/comments-on-lozowick-loudsue/comment-page-1/#comment-36116 Steve Fri, 28 May 2010 02:41:09 +0000 http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/?p=1760#comment-36116 The whole thing with this Indian guru seems fake from the start. ....I can see how it could seem that way because he didn't met his guru till after beginning his own teaching work, but it is indeed quite authentic, not 'window dressing' in the least. Like with most anything, if you only take a superficial look you don't really see much. As you note he is really a ‘Gurdjieff’ experiment (EJ Gold seems to have hinted as much in the seventies). .......I noted that ??? Must be invisible ink because I don't see that anywhere. Anyone who is involved in transformational work understands the principals of the Work that Mr G spoke of, but it doesn't mean one is a follower, teacher or even proponent of Gurdjieff's work. Those principals were around long before G came on the scene. LoudSue The whole thing with this Indian guru seems fake from the start.

….I can see how it could seem that way because he didn’t met his guru till after beginning his own teaching work, but it is indeed quite authentic, not
‘window dressing’ in the least. Like with most anything, if you only take a superficial look you don’t really see much.

As you note he is really a ‘Gurdjieff’ experiment (EJ Gold seems to have hinted as much in the seventies).

…….I noted that ??? Must be invisible ink because I don’t see that anywhere.
Anyone who is involved in transformational work understands the principals of the Work that Mr G spoke of, but it doesn’t mean one is a follower, teacher or even proponent of Gurdjieff’s work. Those principals were around long before G came on the scene.

LoudSue

]]> By: ape2angel http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/05/22/comments-on-lozowick-loudsue/comment-page-1/#comment-36115 ape2angel Wed, 26 May 2010 10:26:19 +0000 http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/?p=1760#comment-36115 Work on self is different from work on others in that one is transformed by the wok itself, not by having anybody else work on you. Gurdjieff's work ended when he died. Gold's work is Gold's work, Lozowick's work is Lozowick's work, your work is yours and my work is mine and so on. Work on self is different from work on others in that one is transformed by the wok itself, not by having anybody else work on you. Gurdjieff’s work ended when he died. Gold’s work is Gold’s work, Lozowick’s work is Lozowick’s work, your work is yours and my work is mine and so on.

]]> By: Bruce http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/05/22/comments-on-lozowick-loudsue/comment-page-1/#comment-36112 Bruce Mon, 24 May 2010 17:38:23 +0000 http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/?p=1760#comment-36112 Gold made a sarcastic remark about getting your money's worth .... Transformational work? These people don't transform anyone. The confusion here of Indian, Gurdjieff and other legacies makes the point obvious. Gold made a sarcastic remark about getting your money’s worth ….

Transformational work? These people don’t transform anyone. The confusion here of Indian, Gurdjieff and other legacies makes the point obvious.

]]> By: nemo http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/05/22/comments-on-lozowick-loudsue/comment-page-1/#comment-36109 nemo Mon, 24 May 2010 11:02:19 +0000 http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/?p=1760#comment-36109 You seem ambivalent and hung up on these people. How many decades have you wasted here? And where/when will you start a real 'path'? You seem ambivalent and hung up on these people.
How many decades have you wasted here?
And where/when will you start a real ‘path’?

]]> By: nemo http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/05/22/comments-on-lozowick-loudsue/comment-page-1/#comment-36108 nemo Mon, 24 May 2010 10:58:42 +0000 http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/?p=1760#comment-36108 Gold made a sarcastic remark about getting your money's worth .... Transformational work? These people don't transform anyone. The confusion here of Indian, Gurdjieff and other legacies makes the point obvious. Gold made a sarcastic remark about getting your money’s worth ….

Transformational work? These people don’t transform anyone. The confusion here of Indian, Gurdjieff and other legacies makes the point obvious.

]]> By: LoudSue http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/05/22/comments-on-lozowick-loudsue/comment-page-1/#comment-36105 LoudSue Sun, 23 May 2010 22:02:29 +0000 http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/?p=1760#comment-36105 The whole thing with this Indian guru seems fake from the start. ....I can see how it could seem that way because he didn't met his guru till after beginning his own teaching work, but it is indeed quite authentic, not 'window dressing' in the least. Like with most anything, if you only take a superficial look you don't really see much. As you note he is really a ‘Gurdjieff’ experiment (EJ Gold seems to have hinted as much in the seventies). .......I noted that ??? Must be invisible ink because I don't see that anywhere. Anyone who is involved in transformational work understands the principals of the Work that Mr G spoke of, but it doesn't mean one is a follower, teacher or even proponent of Gurdjieff's work. Those principals were around long before G came on the scene. LoudSue The whole thing with this Indian guru seems fake from the start.

….I can see how it could seem that way because he didn’t met his guru till after beginning his own teaching work, but it is indeed quite authentic, not
‘window dressing’ in the least. Like with most anything, if you only take a superficial look you don’t really see much.

As you note he is really a ‘Gurdjieff’ experiment (EJ Gold seems to have hinted as much in the seventies).

…….I noted that ??? Must be invisible ink because I don’t see that anywhere.
Anyone who is involved in transformational work understands the principals of the Work that Mr G spoke of, but it doesn’t mean one is a follower, teacher or even proponent of Gurdjieff’s work. Those principals were around long before G came on the scene.

LoudSue

]]>