2nd Will/Volition - "2V" / "Nobles"

"The Nobleman" (2nd Will) 

Perhaps the most difficult thing, when talking about the psychology of the Second Will, is to explain to myself and others what constitutes, obligatory for the Second Function, processivity and normativity in their volitional expression. Nevertheless, I will try. 

The processionality of the 2nd Will is what in official language the words "collegiality" and "delegation of responsibility" usually refer to. Having enough fortitude to take personal responsibility for what is happening in his possessions, the "nobleman," unlike the "king," nevertheless avoids re-subordinating someone else's will and tries to involve all the parties concerned in solving the problem, giving himself the place of initiator, stimulator and keeper of the consensus. The aversion to diktat, the desire for a full-fledged dialogue in decision-making, this is the processionality of the 2nd Will. 

The embodiment of this same "nobility" is the so-called "delegation of responsibility. Alienated by a predilection for petty tutelage, the 2nd Will, while keeping responsibility to itself, seeks to share it with everyone involved, giving them complete freedom to implement it. No matter how different the two American presidents Reagan and Bush are, both have the 2nd Will, which is why those who have worked with them note one trait in common, which is not, for example, typical of Carter - a desire to "delegate responsibility". 

As for normativity, the 2nd Will embodies itself in an equal ability, without internal tension or damage to itself, to both dominate and obey. The 2nd Will is strong and flexible, so it is equally easy to be in a position of authority as well as in a subordinate position. 

However, although this situation is already comfortable in itself, it does not quite satisfy the "nobleman. The ideal position for the 2nd Will is not to rule and not to be subordinated at all - which rarely manages to do in our interdependent world, but is a secret dream of all "noblemen". 

If we try to take a closer look at the normativity of the 2nd Will, we find that it is characterized by a structure and a strength of mind sufficient to create a regime of personal independence and free breathing for others. In one of his letters Goethe reported, "I am engaged in the education of my grandson. It consists in allowing him to do resolutely whatever he pleases, and I hope in this way to educate him before his parents return." Inner freedom and the ability to set others free is the true norm of the Will. Very well and accurately, without knowing it himself, one contemporary playwright described his 2nd Will: "I am not a leader by nature, but I am not endowed with a herd instinct either... Obviously, I am a hybrid of a leader and a follower. Even my own children tried to give as much freedom as possible. I propose to follow me. Who wants to - please, no - as you wish. But I can't follow anyone myself. I can admire this or that quality of a person, especially his talent. But I would not obey. Not even to Chekhov or Dostoevsky. I'm afraid of crowd-pleasers. But this does not mean that I love only solitude. On the contrary, I love to be with people, and even just the presence of people pleases me." 

A "nobleman" is a dabbler of fate. The basis of the human psyche - the Will - takes the best, second line in his order of functions, and thus provides the holder of the 2nd Will with a mental comfort unknown to others. The strength and flexibility of the 2nd Will gives the personality a rare integrity and fearlessness before life. 

Even the vulnerability of the 3rd function, which the 2nd Will is unable to cancel, worries the "nobleman" less than others, and the picture of his pathology in the 3rd function is usually thoroughly blurred. In addition, the fearlessness born of the power and flexibility of the 2nd Will allows the "nobleman" to risk successive healing of the ulcer on the 3rd function and, despite blows, mistakes, falls, to achieve its complete healing. Thanks to this, sometimes an ideal state for a person living in the sublunar world is achieved - a state of complete inner harmony. 

"My life - continuous adventure, because I have always sought not only to develop what was inherent in me by nature, but to obtain and what she did not give me, "- wrote Goethe, and in another place he himself explained why it is necessary: "He who is not imbued with the conviction that all the manifestations of the human being, sensuality and reason, imagination and reason, must be developed by him to a decisive unity, whichever of these faculties may prevail, will constantly torment himself in joyless limitation.” I will not undertake to prove that harmonization is given to a "nobleman" always, easily and quickly (Goethe reached this state only by 60 years of age), I will not venture to say that for others it is unattainable, but the presence of a "nobleman" unique mental prerequisites for achieving inner harmony is beyond doubt. And that is why he is a darling of fortune. 

I remember once comparing the Second Function to a river. Well, the 2nd Will is not a function - it is a human river, an integral, inexhaustible personality, freely, broadly, generously giving to all comers without losing anything at all. Soulful generosity and generosity are simply the normal state for the 2nd Will. The first thing commonly said about a "nobleman" is: "He is a good man!" followed by less flattering characteristics or not flattering at all, but when the characterization of a person begins with such a phrase - more than likely, it is the 2nd Will. Charlotte von Stein, long abandoned by Goethe, still found the strength and words to express to him in a letter: "I would like to call you the Giver. " Here the word "Giver" is very precisely found to express what constitutes the essence of the 2nd Will. 

The "nobleman" has a big heart. I don't want to offend anyone, but only the 2nd Will can truly love. True love is self-giving. And only someone who is willing to share, who has something to give, and who can give without the risk of being impoverished, is capable of self-giving. Only the 2nd Will meets all these conditions. Therefore, may the reader forgive me, others are given to need, to depend, to submit, to nurture illusions, but not to love. Love is understood by the 2nd Will as sacrifice, not consumption. It is much more important for her to love than to be loved. 

Together with strength, flexibility, normativity, one of the fundamental elements of the Second Function is naturalness. Although it is difficult to speak of naturalness expressed through Will, the specifics of just such an expression lend themselves to delineation. Naturalness according to the Will is personal openness, simplicity, adequacy to oneself in any situation, the absence of a second, backdrop or mask. As Nancy Reagan wrote of her husband, "The key to unlocking Ronald Reagan's secret is that there is no secret. He is exactly what he appears to be. The Ronald Reagan you see in public is the same Ronald Reagan I live with. It turns out that some of the recent presidents were not at all what we thought they were. I honestly don't believe anyone could say something like that about Ronnie. There are no dark corners to Ronald Reagan's character. 

Yes, that is the naturalness of the "nobleman. His mental health is so great that he hides nothing, does not show off anything, allows himself to be laughed at, and is often ready to play a playful self-deprecation himself. Moreover, the 2nd Will is so personally invulnerable that, without any serious violence to himself, he dares to do the most terrible thing of all: to repent publicly, openly admitting his mistakes and shortcomings, which the 1st and 3rd Wills are completely incapable of doing. 

Labruyere, naming the 2nd Will "true greatness" in his classification of characters, wrote: "False greatness is haughty and impregnable: it is aware of its weakness and therefore hides, or rather, shows itself a little, just enough to inspire respect, while hiding its real face - the face of nothingness. 

True greatness is casual, soft, heartfelt, simple, and accessible. It can be touched, touched and examined: the closer one gets to know it, the more one admires it. Driven by kindness, it bends down to those below it, but it costs nothing to straighten up to its full height at any moment. It is at times careless, careless of itself, oblivious of its advantages, but, when necessary, shows itself in all its brilliance and power. It laughs, plays, jokes - and is always full of dignity. Near him everyone feels free, but no one dares to be unleashed. He has a noble and pleasant disposition that inspires respect and trust. 

The simplicity and openness of the 2nd Will is not always to her benefit. First, dishonest people sometimes take advantage of these mental qualities. And secondly, it creates in its own way a deserved image of a creature, quite naive, primitive, limited, very simple to understand people, which is the perfect truth, growing out of the bogatyr mental health of the "nobleman" and ordinary human egocentrism, interpreting the whole world on its own example. 

The 2nd Will is fearless in relationships with people. Her ideas of the norm in relations are limited to the image of a close, equal, friendly circle. However, she does not have the right to impose her own norm on others, and therefore willingly observes the distance in relationships that the opposite side offers her. At what distance from yourself you would put the "nobleman", at what he will, as a delicate person, stand in the future. 

"The nobleman" often leaves the impression of himself as a man rather indifferent to people. "You have always been indifferent to people, to their faults and weaknesses" (Lika Mizinova about Chekhov), "His external kindness is an internal indifference to the whole world" (Sophia Tolstaya about Taneyev). Sometimes the "nobleman" himself speaks of himself as a man of indifference. Berdyaev, for example, admitted: "I probably have a lot of indifference and there is no despotism and a tendency to violence, although in the activity I was autocratic. There is a great respect for every human person, but little attention... I have never had a tendency to fumble with people's souls, to influence them, to direct them." 

Despite all these reproaches and confessions of indifference, there is not an iota of truth in them. The 2nd Will is very partial to people, and there is no one more sympathetic than the "nobleman. The other thing is that he is not curious. To put it bluntly, curiosity is not the healthiest of feelings, dictated either by fear or self-interest, or, at any rate, some form of personal interest in other people. The "nobleman," on the other hand, is a delicate, unselfish, fearless, self-sufficient, independent, and moreover, according to the custom of people who see others in their own image and likeness, and therefore - not curious. Hence the myth of the indifference of the 2nd Will. Hence also the biggest disadvantage of the "nobleman" - he is not a psychologist, his credulity and lack of curiosity deprive him of the possibility and desire to discern the secret, hidden side of the life of another's soul and react to it adequately. A contemporary of Vladimir Soloviev said: "He once told me about himself that he was "not a psychologist. He said it in other words, but it was noticeable that he regretted the lack of this trait in him. Indeed, there was a certain blindness and recklessness of the cavalry in him. 

Another misconception, often nurtured about the 2nd Will by those around him, is its supposed softness, weakness of character. And we cannot say that it is altogether groundless. The "nobleman," unlike the "tsar," has a firm basis of character not protruding, but hidden. He is gentle, compliant, tolerant, indulgent to himself and others, faithful in friendship and love (which is also sometimes interpreted as weak character). This plasticine appearance "nobleman" deceives many, and in his own way provokes others - to try his character on the strength: to sass, humiliate, subjugate. The results are usually disastrous for the experimenter. From the plasticine shell suddenly emerges a natural aristocrat, a proud man, a man of inflexible will, able to perish rather than surrender an inch of his dignity. 

Those who try to experiment with the character of the "nobleman" and try him on the teeth simply forget a rather trivial truth: only very strong people can afford weakness. One of the people who knew Chekhov well wrote: "Chekhov's will was a great strength; he took care of it and rarely resorted to its assistance, and sometimes he enjoyed doing without it, experiencing hesitation, even being weak. Weakness has a kind of charm that women know well. 

But when he found it necessary to summon the will, it appeared and never deceived him." 

It is almost hopeless to try to determine precisely the boundary beyond which the solid foundation of the 2nd Will begins to appear. But it is clear that each time we must deal with a certain fundamental, capital question. In Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, Liza asks Alyosha Karamazov, "Will you obey me?" - "Yes!" - "In everything?" - "In almost everything, but not in the main things. I will not surrender to the main things." Similar, "Karamazov-style" lived and acted Abraham Lincoln. Whitman wrote about him: "On those rare occasions when it came to something cardinal, decisive, he was unwaveringly firm, even stubborn, but in general, when it came to anything not too significant, was pliable, malleable, tolerant, unusually pliable. 

* * * 

It is as useless to flatter a "nobleman" as it is to humiliate him. The scent of incense causes him the most sincere irritation and embarrassment, and more than once I have seen the faces of "noblemen" turn crimson, even in the case of deserved and moderate praise. 

Perhaps the most unique feature of the psychology of the "nobleman" is the extrahierarchism of his picture of the universe. Recall that for the 1st Will the cosmos is divided into top and bottom. So, for the 2nd Will, this antinomy is absent in its internal picture of the world. "...In the human spirit, as in the universe, is there nothing that is above or below? Everything demands the same rights to a common medium," believed Goethe. For the "nobleman" all - from God to the tadpole - are on the same line, all are equal in striving to fulfill their destiny. This extra-hierarchism of the 2nd Will Pasternak very accurately called "the nobleman's sense of the equality of all living things." And Berdyaev, for example, confessed: "...I have absolutely atrophied any sense of the hierarchical position of people in society, the will to power and domination is not only not peculiar to me, but a squeamish aversion in me." 

It does not follow from this that the 2nd Will denies the existence of the hierarchy all too obviously manifest in our lives. No. But it does not absolutize it. The "nobleman" perceives the hierarchy as a convention, a formality, a system of labels, perhaps, not useless, but not related to the ontological, essential side of being. Chekhov wrote: "I am equally partial neither to gendarmes, nor to butchers, nor to scientists, nor to writers, nor to young people. I regard form and label as prejudice. My holy of holies is the human body, health, intelligence, talent, inspiration, love, and absolute freedom, freedom from power and falsehood, whatever the latter two may be expressed in." 

The question is: What practical conclusions follow from the 2nd Will's non-recognition of the hierarchical picture of the world? There are many conclusions. For example, I will not claim that the 2nd Will was the creator of the norms of law and morality - they are too different, depending on the country and people, to attribute their authorship to one psychology, but the fact that the "nobility" is the sole guardian of morality and law is certain. And the reason for such a particularly important role of the "nobility" in society is precisely related to its natural aversion to hierarchy. 

The point is that the other Wills are hierarchical, and hierarchy is what, by differentiating morality and law depending on the position occupied by the subject on the hierarchical steps, practically destroys both of them, blurs their borders to the point of complete disappearance. "What is allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to bull," the ancient Romans used to say, thus formulating the hierarchical principle that was destructive to morality and law. However, they also liked to repeat: "The law is harsh, but it is the law," recognizing the existence of another, protective, extra-hierarchical "noble" principle. Both these principles have been struggling in the world for centuries; the future will show which of them will win; the main thing is that, judging from the fact that morality and law still exist, the 2nd Will has not yet lost. 

It is obvious that, according to her political convictions, the 2nd Will is a natural democrat, as opposed to the same 1st Will, a natural monarchist. "Power is better than freedom" said Turgenev's hero to the 1st Will, "freedom is better than power" said any 2nd Will. The struggle between them has also been predetermined from time immemorial, but the picture of the single combat is clearer: so far the 2nd Will is clearly victorious. A growing number of countries are governed by elected bodies, proclaiming the priority of individual rights over all other rights. 

The castelessness of the 2nd Will, naturally, extends to its relations in the family, at work, among acquaintances. The "nobleman" is equal with superiors and subordinates, parents and children, in a friendly circle. Moreover, this evenness is shaded by a sense of dignity, coupled with a respectful attitude toward others. Bunin wrote about Chekhov: "It happened that he gathered with people of different ranks: he was the same with everyone, gave no preference to anyone, made no one to suffer from ego, to feel forgotten, superfluous. And he always kept everyone at a certain distance from him. 

His sense of dignity and independence was very great. 

* * * 

Quite peculiar is the attitude of the "nobility" to social movements. It is accurately described in the following autobiographical lines Berdyaev: "...I have been in prison four times, twice in the old regime and twice in the new, was exiled to the north for three years, had a trial that threatened me with eternal settlement in Siberia, was exiled from my homeland and probably will end my life in exile. At the same time, I have never been a political man. I belonged to many things, but in essence I belonged to nothing, to nothing entirely, except my art. The depth of my being always belonged to something else. Not only was I not indifferent to social questions, but I was also very sick of them, I had a "civic" feeling, but in essence, in a deeper sense, I was asocial, I had never been a "socialist. The social currents never considered me quite my own. I was always an 'anarchist' on a spiritual basis and an 'individualist. 

What Berdyaev describes is not a personal position, but a general picture of the socio-social psychology of the 2nd Will. Our task: only to examine it through the single prism of "noble" values. "Civic" feeling described by Berdyaev is the extra-caste nature of the 2nd Will, which, embodied in the close to itself slogan "Freedom, Equality, Fraternity", is able to involve the "nobleman" in major social movements. On the other hand, the natural independence, the deep sense of the uniqueness of his own individuality do not allow the 2nd Will to fully merge with the crowd, dragging it to the margins of social movements. The crowd presupposes some form of delegation of individual wills to those who lead it. But transmitting one's will to others is totally unacceptable for the 2nd Will, while appropriating someone else's is uninteresting and unfruitful. Own and other people's freedom, even in the struggle for freedom, for the "nobleman" is more expensive than anything else. And so he walks on the party-unpartisan fringe, sympathizing with many, but not merging with anything. 

Rarely does the Second Will stand in open, uncompromising opposition to the existing order of things, preferring not to front, but simply to isolate itself. Goethe spoke frankly of his undemonstrative tendency to isolate himself from all that can be called social tyranny: "Never in my life have I stood in hostile and useless opposition to the mighty stream of the mass or to the prevailing principle, but I have always preferred, like a snail, to hide in a shell and live in it as I please." 

Taking the interaction of the 2nd Will with the world in a broader ontological sense, it is better characterized by the formula of the same hypostatic inseparability and inseparability as the 1st Will. There is, however, an essential difference between the two kinds of interaction. The "king," building his relations vertically, does not assume complete fusion with the world even in theory, whereas the "nobleman" and the world are on the same line and sincerely strive for each other, assuming in the final point of movement to achieve absolute unity. It is assumed, however, that due to the normativity of the 2nd Will, the world should move toward the "nobleman" rather than vice versa. 

What I am now trying to express confusingly and verbosely, Pasternak, predominantly a poet, said in four lines: 

"All my life I wanted to be like everyone else, 

But a century in its glory 

Stronger than my whining. 

And wants to be like me.

"At the same time, the self-confidence of the "nobleman" is only partially justified. His standardization is more of a potentiality than a reality. More precisely, the exemplarity of the 2nd Will makes the "nobleman" consider himself an exemplar, along with other functions that are not exemplary at all. Which makes the 2nd Will at times strangely deaf, unabashed, and pushy. For example, Pasternak liked to tell, without a shadow of embarrassment, how he almost drove a minor literary official crazy with a three-day hysterical monologue of his 1st Emotion while traveling together on a train. 

* * * 

The Second Will's attitude to fame is also best conveyed by a short quotation from Pasternak: "It is ugly to be famous. Note that the word "ugly" has in the Russian language a double, aesthetic and ethical meaning. And here it is impossible not to recognize the goodness of the choice of the poetic word, because, in the opinion of the "nobleman", the desire to get into the light of the lamp post to the roar of people's applause reverberates equally with bad taste and mental ill-health. "I have always been seduced by incognito," wrote Berdyaev, accurately expressing the aversion common to the Second Will, perhaps not so much to fame itself as to its shameful attributes: hype, pomp, dependence on the crowd, panegyrics, invasions of privacy, etc. 

By and large, the "nobleman" does not crave glory, but full self-realization. Which rung of the social ladder the process of self-realization will take him to, and what people's opinion on this matter will be, is a tenth matter. Tolstoy wrote of one of his brothers: "There must have been that precious character trait in Mitya, which I suspected in his mother and knew in Nikolenka, and which I was completely devoid of - the trait of complete indifference to people's opinion of themselves. I always, until very recently, could not get away from caring about people's opinions, but Mitenka did not have this at all." Here I must correct Tolstoy a little, the 2nd Will, which his brother Dmitry had, was not indifferent to public opinion, but not curious, not searching for it. Otherwise, everything is just like with people: pleasant words please, unpleasant ones corrode. But both panegyrics and philippiques are equally unable to break the inner peace of the "nobleman", he has enough mental health to constantly and objectively judge himself by his own court, much stricter than the court of public opinion. 

The mention of Dmitri Tolstoy gives reason to add something else to the appearance and role of the "nobleman" in society. The fact is that, according to such authorities as Leo Tolstoy himself and Turgenev, Dmitri was much more talented than his genius brother and, had he had any grand vanity, the laurels of a great writer would not have passed over him. This circumstance is very symptomatic. No matter how gifted is the 2nd Will, it is, not to say, lazy, but by indifference to the glory does not know the burning passion for action and thus often deprives himself of a place in the pantheon. 

To be a figure seriously swaying the hands of the historical clock is not at all the role that nature has assigned to the 2nd Will in society. The 2nd Will is the salt of the earth, a kind of guardian Vishnu, the invisible backbone and support of a world torn by ambition. And who knows what our society, fierce in its struggle for supremacy, would look like if it did not constantly look back on the late, unreliable "nobility". 

Although Dmitry Tolstoy did not become a writer, by the very fact of his existence he calmed and ennobled the spirit of his genius brother shaken by paroxysms of vanity and invisibly dictated to him the most profound and soothing pages of his works. So, we can say that Dmitry Tolstoy in a peculiar way, "noblemanly" invisibly still realized himself as a great writer. 

A "nobleman" is first and foremost a man, and then a social function. Therefore, no matter what social heights he reached, no matter how staggering his success, those around him continue to appreciate and love him as a man. Zelig wrote of Einstein: "Many times he told me that the ability to do scientific work depends largely on character. But the more I worked with him and the better I got to know him, the less my attitude toward him depended on the scope of his scientific achievements, because as great as Einstein is as a physicist and philosopher, he means much more to me as a man." 

* * * 

Human nature is such that, willy-nilly and completely uncontrollably, he brings into society that spirit and that system which lives in himself. The 2nd Will is no exception here, and since the inner life of the 2nd Will is characterized by benevolence, tranquility, peace, self-confident power, the appearance of the "nobleman" in society brings with it silence and tranquility, is something like the grease that in the old days was poured by whalers on the raging waves. In this connection, I cannot fail to mention the description of the almost magical influence of Boris Zaitsev's Second Will at one of the receptions of the Merezhkovsky family. 

"It was a particularly tumultuous gathering, like a spontaneously rebellious ocean. 

The speakers tried to outshout each other, arguing furiously. Merezhkovsky himself, bursting with inspiration and with his arms wide open, seemed to rise into the air and float above this violently raging ocean, similar to the ocean that had once swallowed Atlantis, the Atlantis that was exactly what was discussed here .... 

And in that moment of the highest nervous tension, Boris Konstantinovich, accompanied by Zlobin, entered the dining room. He entered surprisingly quietly and modestly... 

And immediately, although Boris Konstantinovich did not say a single word, the waves of the ocean, already seemingly ready to swallow us, subsided... 

On that day-not unlike the usual "resurrections"-no one else argued or "crossed the swords of eloquence. 

It struck me then! Zaytsev brought peace to the thoughts and hearts of those sitting at the table with his mere presence... 

I had to observe later on how Zaitsev's presence defused the electrified, agitated atmosphere. It was as if it was impossible to quarrel or even argue passionately in front of him. 

The figure of Boris Zaitsev, among other things, is remarkable in that his writing perfectly embodied all the advantages and disadvantages of the artistic creativity of the 2nd Will. Zaitsev himself, in one of his letters, described his aesthetic credo as follows: "How much I wanted to appropriate from God's wonderful world! Well, I am built like that: I know perfectly well how terrible, cruel, murderous this world, but everything in it is the opposite, and I was given to see not ugly, but beautiful it, more to love, not hate....So I am appointed." Comparing Zaitsev with other, contemporary writers, one of Zaitsev's descendants said: "He is poorer than many. But richer than all, it seems, in one thing - in the harmonious structure of the soul... Nothing explosive, no terrible depths, no philosophy. A noble chivalrous tone, Florentine gold of style, a golden mean in everything." 

Calmness, benevolence, magnanimity - this is what the 2nd Will infects, dealing with art, infects viewers, readers, listeners. The difference is that such magnanimity in the 1st Emotion is somewhat thunderous ( Pasternak), while in the 3rd Emotion it is somewhat ironic (Chekhov), in combination with the 4th Physique, rather sad than cheerful (Blok), in combination with the 1st Physique rather cheerful than sad (Goethe). These combinations practically exhaust the "noble" artistic menu, and there is some truth in saying that the art of the 2nd Will is monotonous. But this monotony is pure monotony, and one cannot become bored with it. 

* * * 

If you listen to me, it would seem that a "nobleman" is an angel in the flesh, which is not the case. I agree. But, for one thing, he has a poor sense of his own advantages, and he is in no danger of megalomania. Bloch once wrote in a letter: "I - very much believe in myself ... feel in myself a healthy wholeness and ability, and the ability to be a man at ease, independent and honest ..." This is, perhaps, the most that the 2nd Will knows about itself. This is not surprising; mental health is as invisible to its bearer as physical health. 

Second, the "nobleman" would really be an angel in the flesh if he presented to the world only his best Will function. But alas, he has three other functions, imperfect, non-standard, inconvenient in the dormitory, and this circumstance greatly distorts the "angelic" face of the 2nd Will. 

* * 

The first outward sign of the 2nd Will, like all Wills in general, is the gaze. The gaze of the "nobleman" is benevolent, peaceful, and somewhat distracted. He seems to say: "Everything is quiet, I am glad to get acquainted, but, if you want, I will not insist on continuing it. 

Heine wrote of Goethe that his "eyes did not look sinfully fearful, pious or unctional tenderness: they were calm, like some kind of deity," and, of course, somewhat belittled. The gaze of Goethe, like any "nobleman" did not contain anything divine, but was simply non-cerebral: the pupils moved, but moved smoothly, and Heine, who could not boast of a calm gaze, partly romanticized his impression of the gaze of Goethe. 

The 2nd Will is a very unimportant actress and fully agrees with Pasternak that he must "not give up one bit of his face." Therefore, when a "nobleman" chooses a career as an actor, he more or less successfully plays only himself, and is unable to reap major laurels in the acting field (Reagan). How difficult it is for the Second Will to act, we see on the example of Blok, who read all of his poems except "Twelve" himself. And the secret of this strangeness lies in the fact that, if the reader remembers, some parts of the poem are stylized in a square-ballad spirit, and Blok simply could not read them, identifying with what was said, as is customary among "nobility. 

The 2nd Will is the only one of all the Wills that organically does not digest profanity and obscenities. Regardless of one's upbringing. It does not digest even when combined with the 1st Physics, for which excursions into the field of physiology are desirable and natural. Boris Yeltsin, with his 1st Physics, who spent his childhood in a barracks, a builder by profession, wrote: "...I could not tolerate swearing all my life, at the Institute even argued with me whether or not I would use even one swear word during a whole year. And every time I won. There is no exaggeration in Yeltsin's words. I have met people with the same order of functions, coming from the very bottom of society, just as intolerant of profanity. Maxim Gorky, who spent his youth in the society of beggars, blushed at the word "latrine" for the rest of his life. Obviously, this is due to the "nobility's" natural sense of dignity and an equally natural respectful attitude toward others. 

We in Russia like to argue about what is "intelligence": the presence of a diploma of higher education or a character trait. So, if we consider anyone with a diploma an intellectual, then everything is clear. The character trait is unclear. But now we can say with certainty that intelligence as a character trait is a natural property of the 2nd Will. It is characterized by democracy, delicacy, tolerance, benevolence, naturalness, independence, i.e. by all those qualities which are usually associated with intellectuality. And it has nothing to do with education, upbringing, or social status. A "nobleman" can be illiterate, unable to use a knife and fork, or spend his whole life in prison, and this circumstance will not affect his intelligence in any way. 

* * * 

A common taste of the 2nd Will is that she prefers discreet, but also does not merge her with the crowd. The main task of the "nobleman" when choosing a dress is rather difficult: having dressed, not to pry into the eyes, and at the same time to feel that individuality is not lost at the same time. The cut is preferable a free, wide, not constraining the movements. Among politicians, the "nobility" can be immediately recognized by the way they hurry to unbutton, loosen the knot of the tie, and, better yet, to change protocol attire for something homely, simple and free.