On May 30, a master class "Truth and myths about vocation" was held in the lecture hall "Alexandria Library". The master class was conducted by Olga Sorina, a psychologist, a post-graduate student at the Faculty of Psychology at St Petersburg University, the head of the “Inhale” project for those who find it difficult at work.

What is a calling? It turned out that it has nothing to do with something fabulous - these are myths. To understand a calling, you need to identify your interests and talents.

Interest is what grabs our attention, what we focus on. Talent is associated with a business that is interesting and easy for a person. For example, if a girl likes to learn new recipes, cooks according to them without difficulty - this is a talent.

Talents can show up in school age: the child will be lucky if the parents help develop his abilities into talent. It is important to approve the child's activities and promote the manifestation of talent, otherwise it seems difficult for the child to develop in this direction.

How to find talent in yourself? We need to forget about the benefits that talents can bring - it limits the search.

What is the difference between a talent and a calling? If a person uses his talent in any activity, he becomes a vocation. It is also important to consider the difference between abilities and talent. Ability is the ability to do something well, and talent is not only skill, but also the pleasure of doing something.

Olga shared with the guests exercises to find talent and interests. For example, keep an “Interest Diary” for several weeks - write down everything that attracts attention - this will help to highlight an interest group. The psychologist noted that if you don’t like anything, it’s better not to look, but to relax. When forces are restored, interests will appear by themselves.

The participants of the master class learned how to start the search for a calling. Remember A. Maslow's pyramid of needs: if we have two problems - lack of money for housing or a way of self-realization - we first solve the first one. To vocation should move only from the comfort zone.

Olga advises to proceed in stages: first find a job with good earnings, pleasant atmosphere in the team and free time after work - in this comfort zone we accumulate strength and resources. Then gradually practice in the area of ​​interest, communicate with experts, attend training courses.
After the master class, we talked with Olga in more detail about the purpose, the difference between the concepts of "work" and "vocation", the problem of job dissatisfaction - read in the interview!

Olga, what is the difference between the concepts of “work” and “vocation”?

difference in purpose. The purpose of work is to earn money, and vocations are to enjoy the activity.

What myth about destiny do you encounter most often?

The myth that there is only one destination, that it is outside of me and that I need to find it, that is, I must find what I do not know. In fact, purpose is related to our own qualities and talents.

In your opinion, is the problem of job dissatisfaction, of finding oneself widespread now? If yes, what could it be related to?

Of course, otherwise I would not work in this area. I think it has to do with the consequences of the change social order in the 1990s, there was no question of vocation in the Soviet Union. Career guidance is not developed in our country, it is built differently professional definition. In more developed countries Europe and the USA it is built on what a person likes, on his talents. Our professional definition so far is based rather on the needs of the state: it needs economists - let's all be economists. I hope we gradually move away from this.

Why are you personally interested in this problem? What prompted you to create the project "Inhale"?

"Inhale" is an accident. I started consulting people for inspiration. After a while, I realized that I was talking more and more about how to get job satisfaction. So I have chosen this topic for myself.

The Lighthouse of Alexandria was the first lighthouse in the world. Construction started in 290 BC and took 20 years. When it was created it was the most tallest building in the world at that time, with the exception of the Great Pyramid.

It was built on the Pharos peninsula to help guide merchant ships to their own busy harbor in Alexandria, Egypt. The lighthouse was damaged by several earthquakes and in end result became abandoned in ruins. In 1994, some of the remains of the lighthouse were discovered by French archaeologists in the eastern harbor of Alexandria.

The lighthouse in Alexandria is also known as Faris of Alexandria.

The city of Alexandria was named by Alexander the Great. It was one of 17 cities he named on his own, but Alexandria was one of the few that survived. Today it is a thriving city.

Alexander the Great died in 323 BC. The lighthouse in Alexandria was built in 290 BC, many years after the death of Alexander the Great.

Ptolemy Soter was the ruler of Egypt who decided to build a lighthouse to guide sailors to the port.

In today's money, it would cost about three million dollars to build. In 290 BC it cost 800 talents (a form of money at this time).

It is believed that it was built from limestone blocks.

Most low level the lighthouse was 100 feet square and 240 feet high. The second level had eight sides and was about 115 feet high. The third level was a 60-foot-tall cylinder that had an opening at the top to allow the spot where the fire was burning to light the way for sailors at night. In addition, it was a statue in honor of Poseidon, the god of the sea.

The lighthouse in Alexandria was about 450 feet high.

Inside the lighthouse there were ladders that allowed people to climb into the chamber of the lighthouses.

It was reported that there was a large mirror inside, possibly made of polished bronze. The purpose of the mirror was to project a beam of light from the reflection of the fire.

It was damaged by three earthquakes. After last earthquake it was abandoned and collapsed. This allowed the sailors to see the beam at night. The smoke from the fire was important during the day as it guided the sailors during the day. Both the beam of light and the smoke could be seen up to 100 miles away.

The Great Pyramid of Giza is the longest surviving of the Seven Wonders. Ancient World. The second is the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, and the Lighthouse of Alexandria was the third, which long time survived.

In 1480, the last remaining stone of the lighthouse was used to build the citadel of Qaitbay by the Sultan of Egypt, Qaitbay. The citadel was built on the same island where the lighthouse once stood.

Julius Caesar mentions the Lighthouse of Alexandria in his writings.

Today, the city of Alexandria uses the lighthouse symbol on the flag of the Alexandria Governorate, as well as in their seal. It also appears in the print of Alexandria University.

It is high time to scatter fairy tales about how they carved, sharpened, dragged, put the Alexandrian column contrary to the laws of nature, the peasants of Peter with the masters of Alexander, the hierophants of pracivilizations, the Atlanto-Pleiadians of the Tartars and other Anunakhs from Nebira.

The history of the creation of an integral Alexandrian column is falsified from the very beginning.The column is an ordinary composite. 10 parts are quite visible if you look with filters on distant photos, and without any filters - on near ones.

This is an ordinary composite column in granite cladding, made complete with other "antiquity" within global project endowing sapiens with history, at about the same time and in the same way (there are actual copies, for example, in Baalbek,), simultaneously with the pyramids, but not carried away by historians into the darkness of centuries and the sands of time.

You can quote Montferrand as much as you like, but one stage of the "evidence of contemporaries", the initial-cutting, is very embarrassing for both "officials" and "alternatives" of all stripes.

"Stone", according to contemporaries, was cut down by "calculated explosions".

This is the text I like the most. I thought only the current workshop of the creators of history suffers from cretinism. It turns out not. Happened before.

“When all the advanced masses in front of the column were removed, Kolodkin set about clearing the base of the mountain under the mass of the column itself, and when this was completed by skillfully calculated explosions directed in all directions of the stone, so that the entire mass, which had more than 100 thousand pounds of weight, almost hung in the air - he placed stands under the mass and from the front side. Bottom part these buttresses were placed on logs and buried in the ground. The length of these logs was from 4 to 5 sazhens. Thus, people had the opportunity without any danger to work still under the mass, for it was necessary to expand the cuts or grooves from below at the base by means of explosions, for the most convenient and unhindered fall of the bulk from the sides. When all this was brought to an end, Kolodkin proceeded, in the presence of Mr. Yakovlev himself, to orders for dumping the column mass ... "

In general, the Alexandrian column was not broken out with wedges from a granite monolith and was not hollowed out with hammers, as one could decide by looking at the drawings of other objects, but received by controlled (calculated) explosions (!!!), in a granite monolith (!!), hanging (!!!), and then they laid logs, spruce branches and brushwood to drop it. Read more about it in the links below.

Enchanting! We are in awe.
The great-grandfather of Sema Pegov knew a lot about his craft.
True, he did not know anything about explosions, and it is unlikely that he had ever seen at least one explosion in his life, but is this an obstacle to honest reporting?

*
A formality for those who are in the tank: according to the laws of nature, monoliths split during an explosion.

The column was made, as I said more than once, from standard constituent parts(limestone or similar material), like all "columns of antiquity", covered with artificial granite, poured into the formwork. It was placed, apparently, on a natural rocky foundation; it is risky to put such a fragile colossus on an artificial foundation.
The formwork is composite, from a set of metal pipes or half-pipes used in turn along the attachment of the core parts. Each segment is narrowed upward, by centimeters.
The plaster of artificial granite is filigree, but not flawless.
The joints of the parts of the column are still failed in some places, and they cannot be repaired to a perfectly even one.
The joint between 1 and 2 parts (counting from the bottom).

Formwork pipes or interlocking half-pipes were placed on the uncured mass of granite. There are traces of joints, although it is difficult to see with the eye (I did not see it when I looked live). But sometimes it's better to watch a good shot. The Alexandrian column is just such a case.

Track. Liquid granite, when dried at the junction of the parts of the core, slightly flowed around the parts, forming characteristic folds.

Originals photo with this fold -,.

Once again I repeat to the stupid concrete workers: not a single antique was poured immediately. Only in layers. The reaction and solidification take more than one day. Wet granite mass sets while still wet, so it does not form seams. Although with large volumes and repeated filling, they cannot be avoided. As in the Aswan under-obelisk with a cut -.

Two more folds at the joints
In the middle is the 8th part, below it is the 7th, above it is the 9th.
Defects in the shape of the core granite mass, completely dried, slightly flowed around.

But to the finish line - when the pipe is removed - there can only be manual work.
This is not a spatula, these petals were generally leveled with fingers.

The dent from the finger in the place of the groove between the 9th and 10th parts was imprinted.

At the bottom of the column, at the very base, there was a light underfill with obvious streaks.

A couple more dents.
In one of these dents, there is a clear foreign spiral object. It's a pity that it wasn't completely captured. For me, this is a surprise. It turns out that the shell of artificial granite was laid not just with a mesh-framework, but with a mesh of spirals ... Well, what is reasonable. This achieves the maximum possible adhesion and, accordingly, the strength of the product.

I agree with opponents that the formwork pipe could not be solid. It is with a seam, or folded from two halves. The imprint of the seam or joint on the column is also visible.

Most likely there was no grinding, and if there was, it was minimal. Surface Granite Column is a very precise work with a very smooth formwork, a hollow tube made of minimally porous, brushed metal.

The shuttering pipe is a grinder in itself. When gently lifted with many soft strokes from below, semi-cured granite will be ideally polished.

It can also be seen that the column, when successively poured with pipe formwork, noticeably moved to the side.

Without entasis - narrowing upwards of each component of the formwork, it is in principle impossible to remove the formwork section of the pipe without damaging the surface.

I am happy to put

addition to the topic from the profile of the journal "Science and Religion".

From the post https://amsmolich.livejournal.com/194249.html
Montferrand writes that on September 19, 1831, "the rock, shaking at its base, slowly and without noise fell on the bed prepared for it." It was very dangerous to transport the monolith in autumn. Therefore, right on the spot, they first started stupefying the monolith, and then hewing according to special templates. The work was carried out over the course of six months by 250 masons.

The drawing of the column shows templates for trimming. The column is divided into 12 parts, each part had its own pattern. In the drawing, templates No. 7 and No. 12:


The bottom diameter of the column is 3.66 m (12 ft) and the top diameter is 3.19 m (10 ft 6 in). The top diameter of the column fits into its height eight times. The calculation of the entasis (curvature of the side surface) of the column was performed by the mathematician, mechanic and engineer Gavrilo Frantsevich (Gabriel) Lame (1795-1870), who at that time taught in St. Petersburg together with Betancourt at the newly formed Institute of Communications

It's not entirely clear what your template means, like we are talking about entasis, therefore, about the gradual narrowing of the column in diameter, but this is not visible from the drawing.

21 Pieds are measured below, probably, we are talking about the old French unit for measuring length and distance (Paris version): 1 pied \u003d 32.48 cm. This means 21 pieds \u003d 6.82 m. about 6.5 m.
And what is this multilayer "shell"?
If you remove the "shell", then approximately the diameter of the Alexander Column at the base is 3.7 m ..

The "monolith mining" drawings are fake at this stage.
According to Montferrand, explosions were not used to separate the column blank; for this purpose, a groove for logs was hollowed out, then the blank was broken off with a dozen logs as a lever.

How was a groove cut the width of the log, two heights deep between the billet and the rock?
The authors say: "incredibly hard work." They allegedly attracted from 300 to 400 people.
There is no sense in these hundreds, because only one person can work in this groove, and he is very constrained in his movements. With a hand tool for chiselling to one worker, this is an occupation for years, if not decades...

Really, no scientists who see fantastic drawings and read fantastic descriptions have ever thought about the fantastic nature of these drawings and descriptions? It cannot be. Nevertheless, I think that any historian dealing with the column is implicitly obliged to believe the authors of the drawings and descriptions.

"Scaling templates" are most similar to the composite halves of the collapsible pipe formwork for the column shell.

not stand up to scrutiny from the positions of the simplest logic.

The rise is known to contemporaries mainly from the drawings of Montferrand. Three paintings by other artists are known.

Five days after the installation, Alexander Denisov presented the painting "The Rise of the Alexander Column".

Grigory Gagarin inscribed the watercolor "Alexandrian column in the woods. 1832-1833" as follows. "D" aperes nature p. le P-le Grigoire Gagarine. Priutino, ce 4 juine 1833" - "From life by Prince Grigory Gagarin. Recorded in Priyutino. This June 4, 1833"

Next, I transfer a few comments from the discussion of the topic of the column, this is the account of the journal "Science and Religion"; the editors of which undertook to establish a discussion between representatives of academic history and the rest.

*
I think that this is the work of the witnesses of the rise of the Alexandrian column, t.t. Louis Pierre-Alphonse Adam Bichebois and Adolphe Jean Baptiste De Baio, even the most irreconcilable academician will be forced to recognize as a fake, for the full evidence of this fake.

Any professional artist knows that it is impossible, observing the process of raising a column, to make a mistake in the sketch so much in its length - as many as two. There is only one conclusion: the artists did not see the process in their eyes.

Carrying out the task - to fabricate artistic evidence of the rise of the column, the artists performed a more realistic version, the rise in parts. Rightly judging that it is problematic to raise even half of it by this method ... The lifting of the second half could be done with a similar lift from bulk soil, it is likely that the artists, jointly or separately, depicted the entire set of works, but the customer rejected the rest of the works .. .

It turns out that the first chroniclers had an order where a two-part composite column was placed. Then it was replayed, and Montferrand came out with an edited version, where the column is intact.

This often happens in the shop.

In Denisov's painting "The Rise of the Alexander Column" it is very similar that the column is also a bit short. With a whole column of clearance in the forests, where the artist painted it, there should not be. So the final version is only at Montferrand.

The speed of painting by Denisov also speaks for the fact that the order was given in advance and completed long ago.

By the way, the weather near Denisov and Bichebois-Bajo is radically different, and the sun shines from different parties... Although the weather in St. Petersburg often changes.

Weather, different time days - things are tolerable. But two white tents in one picture and one in the other say that in given time in this place could not be the authors of these paintings.

And the most important difference. Denisov, like Montferan in many drawings and engravings, has a system of ramps and beams. Bishebois has a quite obvious and much more realistic bulk soil. This is still a rough version of the installation of the column, which was replaced by the current "classic".

These things can only be explained by editing the version of the rise. The early - according to the time of publication - version of Bichebois-Bailliot was edited to the later - according to the time of publication - the version of Montferrand-Denisov.

Tormented by the creators of the legend of the rise, of course, sticks out in the picture of Bichebois-Bailleau.
The picture was also edited, as was the version of the rise.

On top of the obvious ground with elevation changes, where possible, lines of platform boards were applied. Highlighted two areas in red.

It turned out to be a double absurdity. The platform holds not only the incredible weight of the column of 600 tons, but also the weight of the soil comparable to it.

Which, in principle, there is no need to pour on the platform.

In the background, behind the cart, the thickness of the soil is about two-thirds of a person's height, and the soil is poured over a vast area on which stands a solid mass of people, lost in the background and visible from our angle. This is a triple absurdity: the mass of people is another load on the platform.

I repeat: the artists depicted the entire rise in halves and bulk soil, but only this picture was revealed to the masses, and that one after editing.

And in real life, of course, they made up the core of the column from 10 parts, then faced with artificial granite, a mixture that was prepared with her.

The only picture that reflects the real "rise" is this one. Grigory Gagarin. "Alexander column in the woods. 1832-1833".

The lower sectors are ready. The granite was pressed down with the same "templates for hewing" so that the folds would not be pushed out (it did not work out very well, the "templates" were not fixed firmly enough). Work is being carried out at the level of 7-8 sectors.

The structure is an extremely functional shed, primitively built of blocks, a one-time production facility.

On the roof, the parapet is laid out not solid, but with openings for lifting cargo. The right wing is made lower, as a platform for the same purpose. Opposite it is a gate and a loaded supply, on which the raised material.

Logs for scaffolding were dragged to the wing farthest from us, while part of the wall fell apart. This did not bother anyone, because all or most of large lumber has already been lifted. Opposite the wing, smaller timber has been stored.

Windows were made with arches before the era of reinforced concrete products everywhere; the arch was laid out not for aesthetics, it holds the load of the roof, this is normal for a production facility.

It is unlikely that the far wall is missing, as in the Montferrand drawing, rather one of interior spaces became external. If it were possible to do without walls, then they would do it ... The pedestal does not require an industrial building. And the installed column does not require a constant supply of materials; it is required only when continuing work on the creation of the body of the column, that is, when facing with artificial granite.

Raised from the collapsed side, most likely sections inner rod columns; or they were cast in a room, which, after installing the column rod (and it was installed at this stage), became unnecessary. Of course, scaffolding of such dimensions was also needed to lift the sections.

Windows before the era of electricity were not so much for ventilation as for light.

Naturally, the production building will interfere with Montferrand and his entire plot, 100% fake.

*
And one more detail that speaks volumes. The dump at the left wall is too big. The height is more than two riders. It's not construction debris. There is nothing to collapse to make such a dump, the wall can only pour garbage from above. Apparently, brought, but not used sand.

Why did they bring so much extra?

I think that it could well have been brought under the column of the very first project, without granite. The same thickness, composite, subspecies of July or Marcus Aurelius. But in the course of preparation, the workshop decided to make the world's tallest "monolithic granite" column. The material for which sand is needed went to a smaller diameter rod, it was lined with artificial granite, the excess material for the first project remained. That is, inside the column there is a composite rod, reinforced segments from some kind of sand-lime composition.

It is not in the custom to deliver contractors, customers - to pay for building materials with a huge excess ...
Let me remind you that there is no estimate for the column, except for a scribble, remotely not working; Documentation, of course, was, but withdrawn.

*
There is certainly a column in Gagarin's painting, and it is in the process of being "lined" with artificial granite.
Moreover, it obviously already has a hemisphere - a pedestal for an angel, only the angel itself is not yet there.

To the right of the column, closer to the viewer, there are strange structures that look like sheets of giant corrugated foil.

I think that these are wooden or metal devices for wrapping and pressing the metal formwork along its entire length, preventing its deformation. The formwork is still composite, of two wings, and not a pipe, as I assumed at first. The sash-halfs of the prefabricated formwork are the same "patterns for trimming" on the Montferrand schemes.

What else is interesting: in the area where the work is being carried out, to the right of the column, closer to the viewer, two vessels or objects similar to vessels are visible, one of which is suspended, the other is suspended or standing.

Liquid components for the formation of a mass of granite. There is nothing more to be here.

Of course, water is needed to form the granite mass, it uses quicklime. The second component, I'm sure, is liquid or dissolved organic matter. What exactly - science will not recognize this, science has protected the paradigm with "natural granite" for almost 200 years.

*
And the answer to