Who builds pyramids. Who built the Egyptian pyramids? The main meaning of the pyramid

Guys, we put our soul into the site. Thanks for that
for discovering this beauty. Thanks for the inspiration and goosebumps.
Join us at Facebook And In contact with

Each of us at least once in our lives thought about why everything happens in this way in life and why we all live differently: someone is successful, and someone cannot get things done.

website shares the principle of the Dilts pyramid, understanding which, you can change your life for the better.

The main meaning of the pyramid

The Dilts pyramid is something that absolutely every person should know and understand. And there are at least two good reasons for this:

• the opportunity to analyze your life; analysis using questions in this pyramid will help you find out the moments of life that affect your path;
• chance to influence life; when you deal with all the problems, a clear idea of ​​\u200b\u200bhow you need to act so that the road of life turns in the direction you need will appear.

Pyramid levels

Before proceeding to the analysis of the levels of the pyramid and the search for answers, you need to know the main trick: the answer to the question of each level can be found at a higher level.

Level 1. What do I have?

The issue of this level is directly related to your household affairs, finances, family and everything related to your environment. A reasonable question here is why you have what you have. And to find the answer to it, you need to go to the next level.

Level 2. What am I doing?

The question of this level, as it is obvious, is already connected with actions. It is logical that it is the actions that affect what we have in the end. And it would be wise to think about why we do what we do. The answer to this question will give the next level.

Level 3. How do I choose?

Of course, not the last place in life is occupied by the choices we have made. They can be influenced by various factors: goals, health status, degree of passion, etc. But here, too, an additional question arises: why do we choose what we choose? According to tradition, the clue must be sought one step higher.

Level 4. What do I believe?

It's about individual beliefs. If, for example, a person believes that everything can come without effort, then he will not try too hard; however, if he is convinced that work is needed everywhere and then the goals will be achieved, then it is obvious that such a person will do everything possible. But why do we believe exactly what we believe?

Level 5 Who am I?

Based on the name of the level, we can conclude that we are talking about self-awareness and self-understanding (these concepts are able to define our faith). It is very important to evaluate yourself realistically, while not underestimating the dignity and not hiding the shortcomings that need to be worked on.

Level 6

And the last level concerns the main thing - the meaning of life. It is important to have some kind of mission with which you can easily go through life without contradicting yourself, your beliefs, choices and actions.

Thus, if you correctly find answers to all the questions that are interrelated, you can identify gaps in your current life. And as you know, much easier engage in self-improvement if you are clear about your weaknesses. Honest Answers are capable of answering Dilts pyramid questions improve life any of us.

Andrey Misyuk,
marketing expert, consultant

Unknown Maslow

Recently, Maslow's pyramid has been causing more and more criticism from marketers: they say, it does not work in real conditions. Someone even adds: in real Russian conditions (implying that it may work in the USA, where it was created). At the same time, if you ask who read Maslow's works, only a few will answer in the affirmative. "What for? one colleague asked me. “Everything is clear with the pyramid!” It's understandable, it's understandable, but the whole trick is that Maslow did not draw any pyramid, and his theory is not as simple as we have been taught.

The pyramid of needs allegedly by A. Maslow.
This is how it is presented in the book by F. Kotler
"Basics of Marketing"

"Anti-Maslow" today

About Abraham Maslow, the average marketer knows two things - this is a "pyramid" of needs and that he changed his surname from the Russian surname Maslov. Moreover, both are discussed with almost the same fervor.

It’s easier to deal with the surname: his father came from the southern provinces of the Russian Empire and really bore the surname Maslov. He emigrated to the USA at the beginning of the last century, and his son, Abraham Maslow, was born in the USA. His last name was "adapted" to a more familiar sound to the American ear. All his life, Maslow lived and worked in the United States, becoming president of the American Psychological Association in the late 60s, so he has every right to be called an American scientist.

With the "pyramid" is much more difficult. Only the lazy did not scold her. V. Tamberg and A. Badin call their article “Anti-Maslow” (however, at the end they make a reservation that perhaps it’s not Maslow that is bad, but marketers are trying in vain to use him here and there). On specialized forums and in LiveJournal, the “pyramid” is criticized for the very idea of ​​hierarchy and the impossibility, in principle, to fully satisfy needs once and for all. "The pyramid does not work" - say V. Tsenev, V. Boys and others. There is even such an extremely laconic and sharp interpretation of the theory of motivation: “According to Maslow, a person is an “animal that constantly wants something”.” (Yu. Kolov).

But here's the problem: for anyone who has read Maslow's work on the theory of motivation, at first glance at such accusatory texts, it is clear that their authors have not read Maslow's work themselves. It even comes to the point of absurdity: after criticizing Maslow's pyramid, some authors offer their theory of motivation, while in the list of references they do not give references to any of Maslow's works, thus signing their own ignorance.

The authors of such works, alas, do not work with the primary source, but with a secondary product: they take the popular visualization of the theory in the form of a pyramid and try to apply it wherever they deal with motives, whether it is the development of an advertising campaign or the need to increase the motivation of company employees. Of course, this way of working cannot be effective because someone who is only familiar with the "pyramid" misunderstands the meanings that Maslow put into each concept.

Let's turn to the original source: let's compare what Maslow's theory is usually criticized for (which postulates of the theory are usually objected to) with what is actually said in his works.

Maslow as it is

Objection: “The dissatisfaction of physiological needs does not always prevent the emergence of needs of higher levels. When I am very busy with some business, I can not eat for a long time, despite the feeling of hunger.

In fact: when Maslow speaks of the impossibility of the emergence of higher-level needs without satisfying the needs of the physiological level (say, hunger or thirst), he is talking about conditions that today a person living in a civilized society does not experience. In most of the cultures known to uschronic, emergencyhunger ( chronically hungry man) is more of a rarity than a regularity. In any case, the above is true for the United States of America. If we hear from the average American "I'm hungry", then we understand that he is more likely to feel appetite than hunger. He can experience real hunger only in some extreme, emergency circumstances, no more than two or three times in his entire life.. (Quoted from: Abraham Maslow, Motivation and Personality. - K. PSYLIB, 2004.)

The physiological needs that Maslow talks about are extreme needs, extreme conditions. “In practice, this means that a person living in extreme need, a person deprived of all the joys of life, will be driven, first of all, by the needs of the physiological level. If a person has nothing to eat and if at the same time he lacks love and respect, then nevertheless, first of all, he will strive to satisfy his physical hunger, and not emotional ... A person who feels deadly hunger interested in nothing but food". Pay attention - "deadly hunger", not "appetite"!

Thus, often the meaning that the author of the theory puts into the concept of "physiological needs" is misunderstood.

Objection: “Needs are not really organized hierarchically and sequentially. They exist, as it were, on the same plane, chaotically manifesting themselves in this or that person.

In fact: we remember only this fragment of the theory: “But what happens to his desires when he has enough bread when he is full, when his stomach does not need food? And this is what happens - a person immediately reveals other (higher) needs, and already these needs take possession of his consciousness, taking the place of physical hunger. As soon as he satisfies these needs, their place is immediately occupied by new (even higher) needs, and so on ad infinitum. This is what I mean when I say that human needs are organized hierarchically.”

However, in theory there is such a fragment: “ When we talk about hierarchy<…>, one might get the impression that we are talking about some rigidly fixed structure of needs. But in reality the hierarchy of needs is not at all as stable as it might seem at first glance. <...>Speaking of the hierarchy of needs, we only assert that a person who has two needs not satisfied will prefer to satisfy first more basic and therefore a more pressing need. But this in no way means that the behavior of this person will be determined precisely by this need. I think it is necessary to emphasize again that the needs and desires of a person are not the only determinants of his behavior» .

Moreover, Maslow introduces the concept of needs reversion: “In some people, for example, the need for self-affirmation manifests itself as more urgent than the need for love.<…> Of all the cases of reversion, perhaps the most valuable are those associated with the highest social norms, with the highest ideals and values. People who are devoted to such ideals and values ​​are ready to endure hardships, torment and even death for their sake.

So, the general idea of ​​the excessive "rigidity" of Maslow's hierarchy of needs is wrong. And it is rather difficult to argue against the thesis of hierarchy: extreme hunger in the overwhelming majority of cases will still determine behavior more than lack of recognition.

Objection: “No need can be satisfied once and for all, so how can they replace one another ?!”

In fact: It's best to reply with a quote here. “I'm afraid that our reasoning may push the reader's thoughts in the wrong direction. It may seem that the hierarchy of the five groups of needs described by us indicates a specific dependence - it is worth, they say, to satisfy one need, as another immediately takes its place. From this, the following erroneous conclusion may follow - the emergence of a need is possible only after one hundred percent satisfaction of the underlying need.

In fact, almost any healthy member of our society can be said to be both satisfied and unsatisfied in all of their basic needs. Our understanding of the hierarchy of needs will be more realistic if we introduce the concept of a measure of satisfaction of needs and say that lower needs are always satisfied to a greater extent than higher ones. If, for the sake of clarity, we use specific figures, albeit conditional, it turns out that the average citizen has physiological needs satisfied, for example, by 85%, the need for security is satisfied by 70%, the need for love - by 50%, the need for self-respect - by 40%, and the need for self-actualization - by 10%. The term “need satisfaction measure” allows us to better understand the thesis about the actualization of a higher need after satisfaction of a lower one. And at this point, Maslow's theory was simplified utterly.

Objection: “It is impossible to classify needs, therefore the “pyramid” does not work”

In fact: Maslow opposed the idea of ​​compiling a catalog (or list) of needs because he thought it was impossible to do so. So, in this case, it would be implied that all needs are equivalent, but this is not so. It would be implied that each need lives in isolation from the other, which is also not true. And most importantly, such a classification would be made on the basis of external manifestations of the satisfaction of needs - on behavior. But it is quite difficult to say unequivocally what motive caused this or that behavior, and even the person himself rarely realizes the real reason for his actions.

“Obviously, behavior as such cannot form the basis of a classification of motives, since, as I have already said, the same behavioral act can be dictated by a variety of desires. <…> The search for food, the subsequent chewing and absorption of it may be dictated not so much by the need for food, but by the need for security. Behind sexual desire, after courtship and subsequent intercourse, there may be both a need for sexual satisfaction and a need for self-affirmation.<…> Thus, having consistently excluded all bases of classification, except for fundamental, and, as a rule, unconscious goals and needs, we are forced to conclude that they are the only reliable basis for constructing a theory of motivation.».

Thus, according to Maslow, if it is possible to make a classification of motives, then in the most general form and in no case based on behavioral acts.

Objection: “A person at one particular moment of time experiences not one need, but several needs of“ different levels ”.

In fact: Maslow says that, just the same need cannot be one; he speaks in terms of "multiple motivations for behavior" and "multiple determinants of behavior": “... behavior, as a rule, is determined not by one single need, but by a combination of several or all basic needs. If we are faced with a behavioral act in which we can identify the only determinant, the only motive, then we must understand that we are dealing with an exception.

Maslow in Kotler's retelling

How did it happen that from a deep and multifaceted theory, most marketers took out only a “pyramid”, which, by the way, is not in any of Maslow’s works? Yes, there is the concept of a hierarchy of needs, but not in the form of a pyramid and without any graphical representation. Now it is difficult to find out who first drew the pyramid. It is said that this was done by followers of Maslow or popularizers of his theory, seeking to give the theory of motivation a clear and applied meaning.

It is also likely that the spread of an extremely simplified version of Maslow's theory in the CIS was facilitated by Philip Kotler. It is his books that are our most popular textbooks on marketing. Here is how Kotler retells Maslow's theory:

“Abraham Maslow tried to explain why people are driven by different needs at different times. Why does one person spend a lot of time and energy on self-preservation, and another on gaining the respect of others? The scientist believes that human needs are arranged in order of hierarchical importance from the most to the least urgent. Developed by Maslowthe hierarchy is shown in the figure. In order of importance, the needs are arranged in the following order: physiological needs, self-preservation needs, social needs, respect needs and self-affirmation needs. A person will strive to satisfy the most important needs first. As soon as he manages to satisfy some important need, it ceases to be a driving motive for a while. At the same time, there is an incentive to satisfy the next most important need.

For example, a starving person (need No. 1) is not interested in what is happening in the art world (need No. 5), nor in how they are looked at and to what extent others respect him (needs No. 3 and No. 4), nor in pure whether he breathes air (need No. 2). But as the next most important need is satisfied, the next one comes to the fore. (Philip Kotler. Fundamentals of Marketing. - M.: Progress, 1991.)

No more is said about Maslow's theory. We see that the theory is extremely simplified and the sequential movement along the hierarchy of needs is presented more rigidly than in Maslow.

Why the "pyramid" does not work

There remains one more reproach to Maslow's theory, not voiced by us above: "His theory cannot be applied in practice."

In fact This is true. Maslow's theory was not created for marketers. It arose because its author was looking for answers to questions related to human motives, to which neither Freudianism nor behaviorism at that time could answer. And, although the theory provides a deep understanding of the motives of human actions, it is more of a "philosophy" than a methodology. It needs to be studied by any marketer, advertiser, PR specialist for a general understanding of what drives people and how diverse the needs are and how intricately they are interconnected, but it is impossible to make a methodology out of this. And first of all, because it was not created as a methodology, its tasks were different.

The second reason the pyramid is not good for marketers is that for the marketer, the focus is on behavior—getting the consumer to take the action. Maslow's theory, on the other hand, studies motives, and only says about the relationship with behavior that it is extremely difficult to determine what motives are behind this or that behavioral act, that the act itself can be dictated by several motives, and one cannot judge motives by external manifestation.

The third argument relates to the sociocultural context: the marketer works in a modern civilized society, where, in principle, physiological and self-preservation needs are satisfied (remember: Maslow understands extreme states by these needs, and not states of daily “appetite” or the desire to shelter from the rain). Therefore, to assume that detergent has a better chance of success than beer, just because it gets rid of bacteria (safety!), And beer solves issues of social intimacy and, therefore, is higher in the hierarchy of needs, is fundamentally wrong.

It turned out a strange situation: marketers took a psychological theory and tried to apply it in marketing (where it was not created for), and when it didn’t work out, they accused Maslow that his theory was “absurd”, “outdated”, “it doesn’t work for us ". And the question is only in the correctness of the application of the tool - you need to apply it in those areas for which the tool is intended. And criticize by reading the original sources.

For reference

Abraham Harold Maslow was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1908. He was the son of emigrants from Russia. At the University of Wisconsin, Maslow completed an official academic course in psychology, earning a bachelor's degree in 1930, an MA in 1031, and a doctorate in 1934. After receiving his doctorate, he worked with a well-known theorist in the field of learning E.L. Thorndike at Columbia University in New York. He then moved to Brooklyn College where he worked for 14 years. In 1951, Maslow was appointed chair of the psychology department at Brandeis University. He remained in this post until 1961, when he was professor of psychology there. In 1967, Maslow became president of the American Psychological Association. In 1969 he left Brandeis to work for the W. P. Loughlin Charitable Foundation in Menlo Park, California. Maslow died in 1970 at the age of 62.

His works are: Religions, Values, and Summit Experiences (1964), Eupsyche: A Diary (1965), Psychology of Science: A Reconnaissance (1966), Motivation and Personality (1967), Towards a Psychology of Being (1968), New Dimensions of Human Nature (1971, a collection of papers previously published), In Memoriam Abraham Maslow (1972, published posthumously, with contributions from his wife).

development pyramid

Pyramid of Development is a decision-making tool, where each reference point is one or another meaning. The meanings in the pyramid are stratified by hierarchy and linked by levels. The novelty is that we managed to collect groups of meanings from different areas and, using the amplification method, combine what previously seemed disparate.

What is the problem in modern thinking?

The problem with modern thinking is that everyone is oriented towards giving precise meaning to words. And no one can agree on the exact meaning of the words, because behind every precise formulation there is still the possibility of one or another judgment. This is first.

Secondly, the problem of modern thinking is the fragmentation of schools. And in this sense, each unique school sets itself the task of disconnecting from the general field of thinking in order to manifest itself to the maximum. And from the point of view of pragmatism - this is understandable, from the point of view of the tasks of defending the basic theories / concepts of schools - this is also understandable, but from the point of view of the tasks of an ordinary consumer (thinker) who uses thinking for applied purposes, that is, who needs solutions, thanks to this thinking, he probably would like something more. That is, to use thinking broadly, and not narrowly sharpened.

A smart person is always looking for optimization of the process of thinking, decision-making, time consumption, dialogues. People are looking for the exact tool so that they can negotiate to remove the conflict, both within themselves and with other people. In this sense, we use several principles in our pyramid.

1 principle. The principle of hierarchy. We found out that man is a seven-level being. The perception of a person is arranged in such a way that in any field of the sensual sphere, and hence the intellectual one, a person is able to divide reality into seven shades, into seven layers. That's the way man is.

Why - we do not know. But there are some physical theories that also say that the whole reality, energy can be divided into seven levels. From the coarsest to the most subtle. The amplification method as such allows you to look at things broadly. We collect a set of hierarchical systems. Any field of thinking, any context of human activity can be considered from the point of view of hierarchy. Everywhere there is a hierarchy. The world is hierarchical.

2 principle. Second what we're using is amplification - essentially it's looking for synonyms in other contexts. If a synonym for an adjective is an adjective, then if you look at a synonym in verbs, it's kind of like finding a similar word by meaning or by vibration, but in general from a different field of meanings. And this is what allows us to say that words of a certain level, even if they lie in different contexts, in different fields of meanings, have something in common.

In this case, we can also call them metaphorically synonyms. We can say that words from different fields of meanings, but of the same level, are responsible for the same level of energy, they simply reflect it in different contexts. When we say that this is a pyramid of resources, we say that the energy of resources is distributed over seven levels and lies in different fields of meanings. Our pyramid is a tool that allows you to move towards resources hierarchically and in different fields of meanings, and has sufficient tools for competently moving from one level or another or from one field of meanings to another field of meanings.

The field of meanings is a given context that defines the hierarchy, defines the vocabulary, and defines the meanings. That is, in general, determines the flow of reasoning.

Each face of the pyramid is a field of meanings. Each Pyramid is a separate field of meanings. Logical levels are a set of meanings that lie in such a field.

The problem is that usually one stream of reasoning does not converge in any way with another stream of reasoning. That is, people who think metaphysically and for whom thinking at the level of the chakras is quite real and valid, are not at all like the same people who think at the level of needs or at the level of internal logic.

We have the ability to bring these people together and say that everything is one, and when people talk about some level of need, they are also talking about some level of chakras, or some level of logic, or some level of influence. And in general, everyone speaks different languages, but about the same thing.

The Pyramid of Development provides an opportunity to raise the level of the conversation.

If a person understands that these things are parallel, and these things are lower in level, and these are higher, then he begins to classify, conversation, argument, argument, where everything goes where. And the whole question is simply how fast a person orients himself in these parallel realities. By and large, this Pyramid of Development is a tool for transition from one plane of thinking to another. The very idea of ​​parallel realities is a good one. Because everyone means by this that there are barnacles living nearby, who make noise at night in the refrigerator, and then attribute everything to the brownie.

The pyramid is the first device for thinking.

Who will benefit from this tool?

The pyramid will be useful to any person who is looking for effective solutions in order to make thinking more clear and precise. It happens that insight comes in the morning, and by the evening the thread of thoughts is lost. So, in order not to get confused, you can somehow write down: okay, I thought like this in the morning, and in the evening I return to this and continue from the same point.

Based on the Development Pyramid as a roadmap, one can think alone, together, for example, in a family, three of us, in a department, etc. - the size of the group is not limited.

It is clear that in any thinking or in any process an operator is required - a person who knows the system of thinking. In this case, he knows the device. Our task, among other things, is to train specialists who own such a device, although in general everything is clear on such a device. You just need to have the sum of knowledge on the fields of these meanings, what lies behind these words. Deciphering concepts. That is, this pyramid requires some dictionary / glossary.

The Pyramid of Development is needed by a professional facilitator, a professional coach, a manager, a person who works in the field of thinking, in the field of decision making. A person who is focused on thinking as a tool. To search, make decisions, to determine meanings. This is necessary for people who set meanings and manage meanings.

The Pyramid of Development is needed in order to conduct an examination, to become an expert, to think expertly on some specific topics or for a specific task. We can say that this is a pyramid of expert thinking, but special thinking is also embedded there, since it contains special algorithms. Each facet is a speciality. The NLPer understands the Dilts pyramid well, the manager understands the Maslow pyramid, the analyst understands the pyramid of consciousness, someone understands the pyramid of influence. Each pyramid individually is a whole specialty. And seven faces are seven years of education. This is how specialties connect. It's like an expert tool.

An expert is not the number of books read, but a way to move from one reality to another, from one field of meanings to another, the ability to throw bridges between fields. We provide these bridges. Here lies the architecture of thinking, its algorithm.

How to work with her?

You can work either with yourself, or you can work one on one in a coaching session, or you can work in a group and use the pyramid as a facilitation tool for group thinking and for group decision making.

If a person has some kind of request, then there is a wording for the request. And since there is a wording for the request, it means that a person immediately understands in which field of meanings he has a misunderstanding, or where he lost the resource, why he does not move up, why he does not have a solution. Somewhere there is an obstacle to the process of thinking, to the process of movement of energy. When we determine where the very barrier is, that is, we choose in which context of those that we have available on the pyramid, the client's request is located. Well, or our personal request, if we work with ourselves.

When we have a point at which we say - "here it is not clear to me." Here is this point on the pyramid, which corresponds to my problem, an unresolved task - we immediately, firstly, determine the context in which the person is located, and secondly, we immediately determine at what level of seven he has a request. And when we understand what level it is at, we have different options:

Look at this request horizontally by the amplification method: what does this word mean in other contexts of reality. And simply through the fact that we stop looking very directly and get out of the “enchantment” of concrete thinking, we have a field for expanding meanings. The meaning of the word expands horizontally into different contexts of reality. Sometimes, simply by expanding the meaning of a word, we immediately find the answer. Through parallel realities, synonyms. Sometimes, if the request lies in the field of the meaning of logic, then the solution may lie in the field of physiology. But we know exactly where it is.


You can hierarchically solve certain tasks. If the problem lies on the third level, then its solution is on the fourth. Another thing is that we can define this fourth level not only in the same space of meanings in which the task lies, but also in parallel spaces by simply shifting the task to another field of meanings.

The decision is always at a higher level, and the basis is always at a lower level.

Often an obstacle to moving up to an absolute resource is a lack of understanding of a higher level, that is, what guides us, or a lack of resources at a lower one.
We can always check the point of movement up the hierarchy, down the hierarchy, or left-right.

We have a documented algorithmic thought process - something that is so lacking in modern discussions, when people say some words from the unconscious, relying on their slurred competence. That is, there is competence, but no one can say how the decision comes, just people exchange ideas. If a person is more authoritative, for some reason his ideas are accepted with more enthusiasm than the ideas of someone whose authority is less. It turns out that this is a struggle of authorities, a struggle of influences, and not a struggle of thoughts.

In this case, we can record each step of thinking: from here we went here, from here we went there, and then thinking becomes recorded, like a chess game, we can examine each move. What if we go back two steps into the process of thinking? Then you can go into thinking somehow differently. And we have the perfect device for facilitation, because together we can think about the same process. Or direct the process of thinking. And it turns from spontaneous predictions / ideas into an algorithm of thinking. Something I have never seen before.

Pyramids disturb the minds and hearts of many people - from serious scientists who have devoted their whole lives to studying mysterious buildings, to conspiracy lovers who are sure that the pyramids could not be created by human hands. Oddly enough, but there is still no version of the origin of the pyramids that could satisfy both sides.

Granary

A medieval monk named Bernard made an amazing (for the time) journey to Egypt. When he returned, he presented his contemporaries with an exceptionally rational theory explaining why the pyramids were built. The pious explorer was sure that the pyramids were designed as a huge granary. Indirect confirmation of this is in the biblical book of Genesis: Joseph, the son of Jacob, predicts famine in Egypt and convinces the pharaoh to build towers to store supplies. Many still believe in this theory - despite the public cemeteries located near the pyramids.

Atlantis

Another, generally dubious version, has a huge number of supporters. Herodotus described a certain "lost city" in which many saw Atlantis. The Atlanteans who survived the catastrophe migrated, allegedly, to Egypt. It was they who built the pyramids - as a monument to the lost continent.

But this theory really deserves attention. British mathematician John Legon suggested that the pyramid contains a huge amount of information accumulated by previous civilizations. It is written down by the very form of construction. In support of his guess, the scientist gives quite reasonable arguments: the ratio of the base of the pyramid to the height is exactly 2Pi. From this we can conclude: the pyramid is a cartographic projection of the Northern Hemisphere, made on a scale of 1: 43200

alien beacon

And, of course, one cannot fail to mention the most odious idea about the purpose of the pyramids. Supporters of the existence of "Area-51" sincerely believe in the cosmic origin of these monumental buildings. An alien civilization allegedly uses the pyramids as information transmission centers that are still functioning. I wonder if the aliens are tired of looking at the countless crowds of tourists in Giza?

There are many people who consider the theories of leading Egyptologists regarding the construction of the Egyptian pyramids to be erroneous or misleading. This is usually based on the assumption that the ancient Egyptians could not have built the pyramids on their own with their extremely primitive tools.

Based on their own conclusions, and not on archaeological or historical evidence, alternative theories for the construction of the pyramids have been proposed.

All alternative theories are based on assumptions and have little to no tangible support, but despite this, many of them are popular. Probably the most prosaic theory of pyramid construction was described by Joseph Davidovich and Margie Morris.

PYRAMIDS - A JOURNEY TO TRUTH.

The pyramidal blocks are exceptionally high-quality limestone concrete - synthetic stone - cast on site, according to the hypothesis. The blocks are composed of 90-95 percent limestone and 5-10 percent cement, being imitations of natural limestone (probably made in the ancient traditions of alchemical art).

The construction of the Egyptian pyramids never required stone cutting and transportation from remote quarries. The blocks were not mined, but made from geopolymer cement right at the site where the pyramids were built. The limestone blocks did not need to be cut, the pyramid builders poured the finished mass into a wooden mold.

One of the characteristics of geopolymer concrete is that there is no appreciable shrinkage, and the blocks do not stick together when directly adjacent to each other. And if it is not possible to achieve a tight fit (about 0.002 inches) of 115,000 casings originally owned with primitive tools, then tight joints are easily achieved when casting geopolymer concrete.

After being cast for a few hours or even less, the block hardens and the mold is removed for reuse while the stone was still relatively soft.

This is certainly a delightfully elegant theory about ancient technology. Unfortunately, she completely ignores the sheer amount of evidence: the abundance of tools from the Third and Fourth Dynasties, quarrying, and the decline in quality of the pyramid after the Fourth Dynasty.

Davidowicz says: “Hypothesis is a matter of complex science that must be confirmed or challenged by qualified scientists. Ultimately, Egyptologists, specialized historians, cannot approve or reject a theory.”

The proposed pyramid building theory does not find support among other geologists for two reasons. First, his selection of pyramidal limestone was too selective.

Only one specimen of dubious provenance was used: Jean-Philippe Lauer said the stone belonged to the Great Pyramid of Giza. Secondly, some of Davidovich's data is "highly sensitive", which prevents him from sharing some of his technical data with others.

There are several obvious questions that Davidovich and his theory cannot answer. If wooden forms have been successfully used and reused, then why are the sizes of pyramid blocks so varied? Shouldn't they be reasonably uniform in size?

Finally, where is the evidence for the existence of these forms? No molds have been found or mentioned anywhere except for small molds used for clay bricks.

The block stones of the pyramids are carelessly and roughly processed, many of them have well-defined traces of a percussion instrument. The blocks are loosely laid, often with rubble between them. The stones were obviously not cast at the place of masonry. The theory simply doesn't fit the known details.

LEVITATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PYRAMIDS.

According to one theory, the Caduceus Coil device was used to levitate the stone blocks that were used to create the pyramids.

It was a complex path of moving massive blocks, surrounded by rows of sphinxes, along which the spiral field of the solenoid, created by coil generators, acted.

The priests used tuned coils (erroneously identified as columns by Egyptologists), one passive (pictured left) and one active (right). The active coil was grounded to the "Sacred Spot" and used in the planetary energy grid.

The reason why modern scientists cannot duplicate this device is because our primitive science cannot understand the energy source called the "world grid". The authors of the idea Hardy and Killick further explain:

Ancient people used the "grid" to achieve levitation and worldwide communication. That is why pyramids are found all over the world among all ancient civilizations.

The Pyramid of Cheops in Egypt is a coil generator and was built to enter the global network. The main control panel for this grid (nice twist, isn't it?).

This theory may seem silly, but a surprisingly large number of people offer and support such explanations. Andrew Collins, author of The Gods of Eden and Egypt's Lost Legacy, cites a 10th-century Arab historian who recorded a folk tale about the origins of the Great Pyramid.

According to this story, the builders hit the stone blocks with a special rod, causing them to levitate and float through the air at a distance of "one shot". Collins insists that "the ancient Egyptians were able to create some sort of sustained sonic vibration that allowed building blocks to defy gravity." Although, as he adds

THE PYRAMID BUILDER IS OUR CONTEMPORARY.

Of course, there is no archaeological or historical evidence that any of these actions took place in real history.

Such fantasies are based on speculation taken out of the context of mythology. However, the close interweaving of a number of legends sometimes gives unexpected and intricate plots.

In one of the hypotheses associated with the genre of “fallers in time”, the architect of the Cheops pyramid is indeed Hemuin (ref. Wikipedia), whose origin is not exactly known. According to the version, Hemiun, who came from afar, is at least our contemporary.

Hemiun became the archetype of the "intellectual hero" who brought knowledge to the ancient Egyptians. Unable to leave a mention of himself in the texts, he "encrypted" the memory of himself in the Abydos hieroglyphs.