3rd Will/Volition - "3V" / "Bourgeoisie"

"The Philistine"(3rd Will) 

Beginning my story of the 3rd Will, I want to warn you at once: here we enter the darkest and most painful circle of the life of the human spirit. I therefore apologize in advance to readers of the 3rd Will for the frankness with which I must speak of the hidden and painful side of their existence. 

Every third function is bifurcated and wounded. The particular tragedy of the situation of the "bourgeois" is that his Will, the pillar of the personality, on which the entire order of functions rests, has been wounded. And when the pillar is weakened and traumatized, the entire edifice of the human psyche becomes shaky and vulnerable. Life becomes a chronic nightmare: even a weak blow or a mere touch of any function, not only the Third, can shake the "philistine's" being to its core, send the Third Will to a knockout. 

Total vulnerability is a distinctive and most frightening feature of the psyche of the "bourgeois"; it makes the 3rd Will look like a mollusk with the most delicate and defenseless body, which nature has denied a shell and thus condemned from cradle to grave to anger, aggressiveness, secrecy and loneliness. 

One must have a great deal of mental health to look into the abyss that is the soul of the "bourgeois" without fear. Dostoevsky's novels are only a faint glimpse of the hell in which the 3rd Will chronically lives. 

Only to the psyche of a "bourgeois" is the term "complex" truly applicable, since it really is a whole complex of sores, burns and ulcers, threatening to grow into one multifunctional festering wound. That is why the means of self-defense of the 3rd Will have the form of a complex universal set. If the reader remembers, each Third Function has its own "fig leaf". The 3rd Will also has it: hypocrisy and foolishness. But since the "philistine" is vulnerable to the whole order of function s, he has to cover himself entirely, with the whole sheepskin of existing "fig leafs": now he is either fooling around, now he is sanctimonious, now he is ironic, now he is in the deepest skepticism. 

The image of the naked mollusk with the most delicate, vulnerable body, sneaking through life like a serpentarium, wearing a cloak of fig leaves, is an image that quite accurately conveys the inner life of the 3rd Will. 

* * * 

One of the typical derivatives of the state of mind of the 3rd Will is that, feeling the Will bending and cracking under the weight of the other functions, it tries to shift the center of gravity of the personality to the well felt, excessive First Function in itself. 

This results in something similar to a person who, instead of walking on a rope bridge (of four functions), prefers to walk on one rope (on the First Function), believing that one rope, but reliable, is better than four, especially if it is made thicker. Balancing on one First function leads to the fact that the "philistine," striving to strengthen and reinforce the First function, artificially hypertrophies it, already hypertrophied, to such degrees that those around him begin to classify the "philistine's" state as insanity. 

Previously, speaking of the First Functions, I have already had to mention that some abnormalities are associated with them in psychiatry. Now it is time to say that the majority of such a risk group consists of "bourgeois" people: combination of the 1st Emotion with the 3rd Will gives manic-depressive psychosis, combination of the 1st Logic with the 3rd Will - paranoia, combination of the 1st Physics with the 3rd Will - pathological avarice and cruelty. The mechanism of these deviations is simple: a person seeks, without relying on the wounded Will, to make even more redundant and reliable what he already has redundant and reliable, thereby falling into such excess that psychiatry begins to treat his state of mind as pathological. Again, though, these abnormalities are psychotypical rather than psychiatric. 

* * * 

It is extremely difficult to describe the inner state of the 3rd Will, so it is better to refer to a document. Here are excerpts from a letter of a young "bourgeois," remarkable in that its author not only constantly senses a hidden defect in himself, but also tries to analyze its origins: "I have looked over my past and present, and it turns out that I am a meager impersonality, aware of my impersonality. I had guessed this before, but now I am sure of it. 

I never had any friends, or rather, I had one in 2nd grade, but then we became friends. Everyone always made fun of me, I mean my peers, and for some reason in my mind I always thought I was better than all of them. It was different in life... 

I don't have the energy to finish the lesson. I am constantly thinking about myself or dreaming. And in dreams I am usually strong, strong-willed and purposeful, not like in life. I didn't do anything in sports, although I rowed for 5 years. I was getting pretty good results in training. But as soon as the competition came, I had the worst results. 

I feel shy and uncomfortable with people. I hide my eyes in front of passersby, as if I am guilty of something in front of them. I can't help it! 

The last few years, somewhere around 7th or 8th grade, I started to feel very uptight in class. I felt like I didn't have a friend, and those classmates I was attracted to didn't pay attention to me, and I agonized. What I didn't think of. Looking back now, I realize that I never had a face of my own. I was always following someone else's lead. In fact, I feel like I don't feel anything. I can't get angry, I can't laugh my heart out, I can't! I can't or don't know how to be a friend, and I want to have a friend so badly! 

When I am scolded, I have absolutely nothing to say against it. I feel that something in me is not right. I don't have some strength in me. My ethics teacher told me that temper tantrums are inherited from parents. Then maybe I got my characterlessness from my father. He hasn't lived with us for a long time, but my mother said that he was an alcoholic and weak-willed man, while my mother is strong, with character. 

...How to go on living! It's getting harder and harder every day. Such a confession. A kind of sorrowful list of the anguish of the 3rd Will. There is no point in commenting on every word of the letter now, because there is still much to be said about the specific psychology of the "petty bourgeois". 

* * * 

Lying is the earliest and truest sign of the 3rd Will. I will not say that the other Wills never lie; it happens, but only in great need. The case of the 3rd Will is different. It lies frequently, automatically, impulsively, stupidly, senselessly. Lying for a "petty bourgeois" is a universal tool of self-protection and self-assertion and therefore becomes exposed at the first imaginary or real threat, as well as at the first opportunity to throw dust in the eyes. The Third Will is too vulnerable, too sensitive to public opinion, not to try to protect the wounded core of its nature with lies. Whereas for a "gentleman" people's assessments can only scratch the surface of his powerful being, for a "philistine" any opinion, be it positive or negative, shakes the foundations, excites to the core, stimulating a reaction in the form of an impulsive and usually not convincing lie. 

Pretense, hypocrisy, or, more directly, hypocrisy, is an integral part of the same tendency of the 3rd Will to lie. The "philistine" is afraid to reveal himself, to reveal himself, preferring to look like someone, more often a person, more socially important than to be himself. Dostoyevsky wrote: "We are all ashamed of ourselves. Indeed, every one of us carries within him an almost innate shame about himself and his own face and, almost in society, all Russian people immediately try to quickly and at any cost to appear to be something else, but not what he is in fact, everyone hurries to take a completely different face." 

The 3rd Will is a born actor of the theater, which is better described not as "social" but as "hierarchical," because the "burgher" acts not only in society, but also in the family. 

* * * 

"A "philistine" is even softer and more docile than a "nobleman. But malleability is not the same as malleability. Comparing the 2nd and 3rd Wills, La Rochefoucauld noted very correctly: "Truly soft can only be people with a firm character, the rest of the apparent softness - this is often just weakness, which easily turns into bitterness. Indeed, the "burgher" is obedient, but not of his own free will and, secretly hating the abusers over his will, ready to endlessly accumulate resentment, at the first opportunity cruelly paying for his former obedience. Thus, young Paul McCartney, after a parental flogging, declaring complete and utter remorse, would sneak into his parents' bedroom and with the words, "Here you go!" "Here you go!" ripping the kiese off the curtains. Ambiguous obedience differed Russian Tsar Nicholas II, he once made this characteristic confession: "I always agree with everyone, and then do as I please. It was a generic trait among Russian tsars: Alexander I, the great-grandfather of Nicholas II, was called "a meek stubborn man. 

The lower the 3rd Will has to bend, the more unexpected and severe the straightening is. People around us usually describe such straightening as "betrayal," but in general, the 3rd Will never betrays, because it never fully belongs to anyone. Loyalty is the lot of either very strong or hopelessly weak people. The "philistine" occupies an intermediate position and is therefore not faithful by its very nature, although he usually gives plenty of assurances and advances on this score. 

Recalling Andrei Bely, Berdyaev wrote: "In this very bright individuality the solid core of his personality was lost, there was a dissociation of personality in his very artistic work. This, by the way, was expressed in his terrible infidelity, in his propensity to betrayal... 

He gave the impression of being a friend of the house. He constantly agreed with me, as he could not object at all to my face. Then suddenly, for a while, he disappeared completely. At that time he would usually print some article attacking me harshly... I had the impression that he was settling a score for agreeing in private, not agreeing, he was getting even with me in scolding articles. 

Betrayal, as a form of voluntary response to external irresistible pressure of will, for the "petty bourgeois" often coexists also as an involuntary response to the same pressure. Gorky, who wrote an article about provocateurs in 1917, received a letter from one such "comrade provocateur," which contained the following expressive lines: "I make no excuses, but I wish that the psychology, even of such a wretched creature as a provocateur, could still be understood by you. After all, there are many of us! - All the best party workers. It is not a singular ugly phenomenon, but obviously some deeper common cause that has driven us to this impasse. I ask you: overcome disgust, come closer to the soul of the traitor and tell us all: what motives guided us when we, believing with all our souls in the Party, in socialism, in everything holy and pure, could "honestly" serve in the guard and, despising ourselves, still find it possible to live?" 

The "philistine" is a natural agent-double, because he has neither the spirit nor the will to resist something, nor to belong to something to the end - and this is the only and main reason for the paradoxical split personality that has been, is and will continue to be observed in our already complex, mysterious, metaphorical spiritual life. 

* * * 

The caste-based, hierarchical picture of the cosmos, society and family that has lived in the soul of the "bourgeois" since birth is an important element of the psychology of the 3rd Will. The main thing in it is the infinite complexity of the hierarchy as seen through the inner eye. If the reader remembers, the hierarchical picture of the 1st Will is very simple and limited to two steps, while the 2nd Will simply lacks it. Therefore, one cannot fail to recognize the peculiarity of the 3rd Will's visible hierarchy, which, in its view, is infinitely complex and made up of an infinite number of components. 

It is impossible to describe everything that, in the opinion of a "bourgeois", matters in determining one's place in life: a place on the cosmic ladder, a place on the ladder of nature, age, gender, race, nationality, religion, origin, position, appearance, property, profession, education, and many other seemingly invisible summands, which allow a "bourgeois" to find a special place for everyone in his caste world picture. 

The mere recognition of differences among the world's inhabitants would not be alarming if the 3rd Will did not absolutize all these differences and, having absolutized them, did not structure its attitudes and behavior accordingly. How this looks in practice is easy to observe in our literary world and in the figures of such giants as Pushkin and Bryusov. Here are two sketches from nature: "The sense of equality was completely alien to Bryusov. Perhaps, however, this was also influenced by the petty bourgeoisie, from which Briusov came out. A petty bourgeois is not an example easier to bend back than, for example, an aristocrat or a worker. But the desire to humiliate the other on occasion also grips the happy bourgeois more than the worker or aristocrat. "Every cricket knows his stump", "rank and file" - these ideas were introduced into literary relations by Bryusov directly from the Tsvetnoy Boulevard. Briusov could either command or obey. To show independence - meant once and for all to acquire an enemy in the person of Bryusov.", "Pushkin considered his treatment not with the personality of the person, but with his position in the world, and therefore recognized his colleague most insignificant barich and was offended when the society met him as a writer, not as an aristocrat." 

Particularly noticeable is the casteism of the "bourgeois" against the background of the even attitude of the "nobleman. Another contemporary of Pushkin continued: "Delvig and all his Lyceum comrades were alike in their treatment, but Pushkin treated them differently. He was quite friendly with Delvig and listened when Delvig kept him from excessive card games and too frequent visits to the nobility, which Pushkin was very prone to. With some of his fellow students, in which Pushkin did not see anything remarkable, including Mikhail Yakovlev, treated somewhat arrogantly, for which he was often harassed by Delvig. 

Like any phenomenon, the casteism of the Third Will has its positive side. It makes the "bourgeois" a highly tactful creature, sensitive to invisible class barriers, which other Wills often stumble over because of their blindness. 

The ability of the Third Will to social mimicry is incomparable, and, without wishing to torment the reader with my coarse language, I will simply quote from Gogol in this connection: "It must be said that if our Russians have not caught up with foreigners in some other things, they have far outstripped them in the skill of address. It is impossible to count all the shades and subtleties of our treatment. A Frenchman or a German cannot understand all the peculiarities and differences, he will speak to a millionaire or a petty tobacco merchant in the same voice and in the same language, though of course he will flatter the former to an extent. It is not so with us: we have such wise men who will talk differently to a landowner who has two hundred souls than to one who has three hundred, and to one who has three hundred they will talk differently than to one who has five hundred, and to one who has five hundred they will talk differently than to one who has eight hundred; in a word, one can go up to a million, but there will be shades. Suppose, for example, there is a chancellery, not here, but in a trinity of states, and in the chancellery, suppose there is a governor of the chancellery. Look at him, when he sits among his staff, you can't even say the word out of fear. - And what does not his face express? Just take a brush and paint: Prometheus, resolute Prometheus! The eagle's eagle, he struts and struts and struts. The same eagle, as soon as he leaves the room and approaches his boss's office, a partridge so rushes with papers under his arm that there is no piss. In society and at the party, whether all be of small rank, Prometheus remains Prometheus, and a little higher than him, with Prometheus will do such a transformation, which even Ovid did not invent: a fly, smaller than even a fly, destroyed in a grain of sand! "This is not Ivan Petrovich," you say, looking at him. - "Ivan Petrovich is taller, and this one is both short and skinny, the latter speaks loudly, basses and never laughs, and this one knows what: squeaks like a bird and laughs all the time." - When you get closer, you see, just like Ivan Petrovich!" 

Reading Gogol, let us not jump to the conclusion that the casteism of the 3rd Will concerns only social life. For the "bourgeois" the hierarchical principle is universal. "Philosophers create Platonic systems of a complex co-subordination of worlds. The "bourgeois" theologians rank spiritual forces, saints, and creeds. "Ethnographers assign different ranks to races and peoples in a fascist way. As for the "philistine," the philistine, agreeing in person or in absentia with everything that postulates caste in various spheres of life, seeks first of all, according to his own clear but firm signs, to establish a strict system of cosubordination in his own family. 

From the outside, the system of "bourgeois" family deference looks sometimes ridiculous, sometimes frightening. For example, Vasily Rozanov did not allow his housemates to eat meat from his soup and ate it in pride of place alone, and Dostoevsky's father, when he went to bed during the day, made his overgrown sons drive flies away from his face. However that may be, the hierarchy for the "bourgeois" is hardly the only firmament on which he can lean with greater or lesser certainty, which is unusually important in the conditions of a psyche of the Third Will, subject to all winds and constantly shaking to all. 

The "citizen," however, would not be himself if he were not, in relation to the hierarchy, both the custodian and the shaker of it. The niche that the 3rd Will occupies in the hierarchy it sees in is a cage, with all the conveniences and inconveniences that this implies; it is a shell and a prison, a shield and a vice. The table of ranks prevents the "petty bourgeois" from falling below his proper place, but it also prevents him from rising above it. Therefore, the 3rd Will is both the keeper and the wobbler of rank. The difference is that the lower the fate places the "petty bourgeois", the more he hesitates, while the higher he is, the more he is a keeper. This circumstance, incidentally, can explain the evolution of many political figures who began their careers as extreme radicals and ended up as extreme conservatives. 

However, by and large, every "petty bourgeois" in his deeds is more of a hierarchy builder, while in his dreams he is more of a destroyer. The fact is that he is hindered by a chronic insecurity - the fear that his free floating, unbound by the fetters of officialdom, will not lift him up, but, on the contrary, will drop him to the bottom of public life. Therefore, on reflection at his leisure, he decides that it is safer not to risk and leave everything as it is. 

* * * 

The 3rd Will loves and hates Power. He loves it more than he hates it. In the subconscious mind of the "philistine," Power is mystically identified with the Will, and since his own Will is wounded, the "philistine" has a feeling for the bearer of power similar to that felt by an old tubercular man for a young, chubby, rosy-cheeked peasant woman. 

The 3rd Will envies, hates and at the same time unconsciously and almost disinterestedly flings itself toward Power, striving to stay in Its field longer. Pushkin, the author of very radical poetry, according to his best friend, "had some wretched habit of changing his noble character, and often made me and all of us angry with the fact that he liked, for example, to twirl around the orchestra near Orlov, Chernyshev, Kisilev and others: they listened to his jokes, witticisms with a patronizing smile. It happened from the chairs to make him a sign, he immediately came running. 

Through the unconscious and almost selfless love of the 3rd Will for Power, one old and seemingly insoluble historical paradox is easily explained: no matter how cruel a tyrant was, no matter how methodically he mowed down the heads of his entourage, the place around him was never empty. Surprisingly, there were always kamikazes eager to fill the gaps in the tyrant's constantly thinning entourage with their bodies, for the sake of a brief moment in the mantle of power. This craving is akin to somnambulism, akin to the force that irresistibly draws a butterfly to fire. Power as a visible expression of the will is the only thing that the 3rd Will truly loves and for which it is willing to make any sacrifice. 

At the same time, the "petty bourgeois," for all his love of power, is prone to engage in covert sabotage, secret fronts, foolishness, demonstrating false humility and outward indifference to authority. And this ambivalent attitude toward power often shocks those around him. As one of the poet's contemporaries wrote: "Pushkin constituted some mysterious, duplicitous being...He was both a conservative and a revolutionary." 

* * * 

The 3rd Will is fine in the role of a subordinate. It is generally more comfortable to be a slave in decision-making rather than a leader, to take less responsibility. Walter Schellenberg, chief of the Nazi SD, described his first impressions of the spectacle of the organization that later became his home: "I was increasingly delighted by the silent interaction of all the gears of the invisible mechanism that seemed to me to open new doors for me, while commanding me like a weak-willed puppet. But the dignity of the 3rd Will as a servant is not in its placidity. The dignity is that she is not bluntly and directly executive, but artistically executive. As a seeker, a cautionary, "burgher" serves not for fear, but for conscience. Like a sunflower watching the sun, he follows his superiors with his inner eye, striving to fulfill even his unspoken wishes. Catching any vibes coming from the boss with the thin membrane of his vulnerable Will, the "petty bourgeois", playing ahead of him, often presents him with something that he does not expect, has not had time for or is too shy to formulate directly. 

As good as the 3rd Will is as a subordinate, so terrible is it as a boss. The first thing that makes the activity of a "petty bourgeois" as boss unfruitful is, of course, the inconsistency, half-heartedness, ambiguity of his decisions due to his character, or, better to say, weak character. In my opinion, the best characterization of the 3rd Will as chief was given by Speransky, speaking of Alexander I: "You know the suspicious character of the sovereign. Everything he does, he does half-heartedly. He is too weak to rule and too strong to be governed." 

The second thing that further spoils the case in this situation is the attitude of the 3rd Will toward its subordinates. What was once said of the emperor Caligula can be said of almost every "burgher": "There was no better slave and no worse sovereign in the world." Part of the trouble lies in the same identification of Power and Will that is characteristic of his mental picture. After becoming boss, the 3rd Will decides that the seat should paint it, and begins to imitate the style and behavior of the 1st Will, i.e., the redundancy of the Will. But since the boss's chair does not change anything in the order of functions of the "bourgeois", it turns out to be not a copy, but a caricature of the "king": conceit instead of pride, obstinacy instead of persistence, tyranny instead of dictatorship. 

Yes, yes tyrants are born and are born with the 3rd Will. The other wills either have little appreciation for power, or feel strong enough not to abuse it too much. The "philistine" is a different matter. Having been given power, the object of his timid, secret lusts, he is deeply aware of how little he deserves such a gift, and the fear of discovering this discrepancy hastens him to crush everything independent, everything personal, and, on occasion, everything living around him. 

At the same time, perhaps the main victim of the "bourgeois" tyrant's autocratic behavior is himself, a victim, above all, of his own psychological nature. The 3rd Will, like no one else, is sensitive to the attitude toward himself and experiences extremely painfully, finding coldness, alienation and fear in place of the former warmth and affection. But in this case, the "petty bourgeois" cannot do anything about it - an adequate reaction, naturalness and evenness in relations are the most difficult to give him, especially in the boss's chair, and the "petty bourgeois" continues to deepen with his own hands the abyss that separates him from his subordinates, which he hates himself. Here is an excerpt from one letter to a psychiatrist: "Everything seems to be well: healthy, athletic, good family, cheerful, many friends, hobbies. I like my work, the collective is nice, though, of course, not without... Recently I became a manager, I will have to manage the department. 

Here's the problem. 

Can I do it? 

The first steps are disturbing. Although I know the case like the back of my hand, I've been awarded many prizes, etc., I make mistake after mistake. 

No confidence. Then I disgustingly ingratiate myself, then I fall into stony categoricalness, dry formalism I ....begin to lose understanding with people, trust, spontaneity, warmth. And this is the most precious to me, and for this I appreciate (I'm afraid "appreciate" will soon have to use the past tense). This is the cry of the soul of the "bourgeois" who became the boss. 

There is another sure sign that makes it easy to distinguish the "tsar" from the "bourgeois" who imitates him. The fact is that, as mentioned above, the 1st Will with an iron hand holds all its functions, allowing them to be realized only in regally elevated forms, and does not entrust them to anyone else. The same cannot be said of the 3rd Will, which is quite incapable of controlling the other functions. The 2nd Emotion chronically drove Emperor Nero to the theatrical stage, the 2nd Physics made Peter the Great spend hours at the lathe, and neither of them could do anything about their passions according to the 2nd, though they probably guessed that they did not add authority to them. 

The ears of the First Function also protruded uncontrollably in the behavior of the "bourgeois". No matter how much of a barbarian Khrushchev sometimes put on himself, the excess of the First Emotion came pouring out of all the crevices of his nature. The example of Khrushchev makes it clear that the 3rd Will had no power over the Fourth Function either. Khrushchev's 4th Logic was constantly seized by different, often delusional ideas obviously brought in from outside, easily accepted by him for execution, which, understandably, also did little to beautify his pretended image of royalty. 

* * * 

"Fouché despises people so much because he knows himself too well," Talleyrand remarked self-critically, judging himself. "The 'philistine' fears, does not love and does not respect himself, and in his own image and likeness fears, does not love and does not respect others. 

Although sometimes a sense of the gigantic potential in themselves, sometimes gives the "bourgeois" moments of extreme narcissism and extreme conceit. Sophia Tolstaya wrote in her diary: "I think I'm pregnant, and not happy. Everything is scary, I look at everything unpleasantly. The desire of some power, to be above all. It's hard for me to understand, but that's how it is." 

The self-esteem of the 3rd Will is a constantly oscillating pendulum from pole to pole. As Honore Balzac's mother used to say, "Honore considers himself either everything or nothing. And this is the holy truth. The bifurcation of the Will - the fulcrum of personality drives the "philistine" from one extreme of self-esteem to the other, almost never keeping him at an adequate mark. And along with the 3rd Will, the whole order of functions swings: constant vacillation in thoughts, feelings, behavior, evaluations is a normal state for it. 

The 3rd Will is restless, uninhabitable and perpetually dissatisfied. If you put it in paradise, it will not get along, because the hell in which the "bourgeois" chronically lives is in himself. Jacob Boehme said that an angel standing in the middle of hell feels like he is in heaven, while the devil in heaven feels like he is in hell, and he was right. Our environment is only a reflection of our self. So it is natural that the sick, fractured spirit of the 3rd Will does not see the world as anything other than uncomfortable, unjust, hopelessly flawed. 

"The philistine" is a very difficult person in the dormitory. Anger at the whole world, mistrustfulness, resentfulness, unpredictability, capriciousness, sneakiness, replaced by rudeness - do not paint the life of the 3rd Will himself and turn the life of those around him into a chronic torture. Gogol's friend, the historian Pogodin, when the writer moved out of his apartment, crossed himself and bowed after the departing carriage. Approximately the same gesture was repeated by Dickens when, after a month as a guest, Andersen left his house. 

The 3rd Will is very cautious in relations with people and, no matter how the circumstances develop, never makes drastic moves either toward or away from a person. The evolution of the "philistine's" attitude toward others can best be imagined as a funnel. Slowly, in a spiral, he lets a man approach him and just as slowly pushes him away. The evolution of the attitude of Nero to Seneca or of Stalin to Bukharin are clear examples of this. 

It does not follow from the cautiousness of the 3rd Will that it is normative in relationships and that its behavior is always adequate to the situation. On the contrary. The constantly fluctuating psychic body of the "bourgeois" never reacts adequately to the situation. A gifted émigré poet was repenting: "Once again I have outraged some, I have bowed down before others. I always - or in the face, or in the legs. 

Secrecy and spying is another seemingly contradictory, but in fact an inconsistent character trait of the 3rd Will. She is a conspirator and spy in one person. The tendency of the "burgher" to the underground is not difficult to explain: feeling like a naked clam, he simply cannot allow himself to be sincere, accessible, open. 

However, the 3rd Will would not be itself if, in secrecy, it were not drawn to its secrecy and hungry for confession. One gets the impression that the institution of confession in church was created just for the "petty bourgeois", allowing them to be sincere without fear of censure or retribution. Sometimes, even without the church, the 3rd Will had the courage to show his underwear, which surprised people around him. A contemporary wrote of Dumas the Father: "He is at one and the same time sincere and secretive. 

It happens that a "burgher" gets drunk on wine vapors, and I know of no sight more horrible than this. Disgusting drunken behavior is the firmest sign of the 3rd Will. I think everyone has witnessed such a picture, when the nicest, kindest acquaintance of yours, having touched a bottle, suddenly turns into a savage boor, whose blackness of soul and mind would be the envy of Satan himself, from whose mouths begin to sound such confessions and such philippiques that the saints take away. The "philistine" usually knows that he is no good on the hop, and wisely does so when he goes off on a lifelong binge solely for this reason. 

From the total vulnerability of the 3rd Will, along with secrecy, comes directly from its tendency to snoop. The "philistine" is afraid of people and is therefore curious about them. His chronic fear of being struck makes him watch his surroundings, gathering and saving up stones from behind his back, with the help of which he could repel in the event of an attack. From fear, the 3rd Will is relentless in its analysis of man, his attitudes and reactions, so it can be said that if there is a natural gift of a psychologist, this gift is given only to a "bourgeois". 

It is true that the psychology of the Third Will is somewhat one-sided. It is interested not so much in the man in general as in the funny, dirty, ugly, terrible aspects of his nature and existence. The "philistine" is a consistent collector of dirt, and this circumstance awards him with another natural gift: the gift of the satirist (not to be confused with the talent of the humorist). Practically all great satirists have had the 3rd Will. One must dislike and disrespect oneself and others to devote one's life to mockery of human flaws and weaknesses and to do it as talented as Swift, Moliere, and Gogol did. 

While the "burgher" himself is a great lover and master of mockery, there is no man who is so afraid of laughter. It sometimes comes to the point of being a joke. Here is one of them: "In the forties, I. S. (I. S. Turgenev - A. A.) once had a company gathered in St. Petersburg: there was Belinsky, Herzen, Ogarev, and someone else. They were playing cards, and as Dostoevsky was entering the hall, somebody got very upset, and so there was general laughter. Dostoevsky went pale, stopped, then turned and, without saying a word, left the room. At first no one paid any attention to this, but as he did not return, I.S., as host, went to see where he had gone... "And where is Fyodor Mikhailovich?" - he asked the footman. "They've been walking around the yard for an hour without their hats on." 

It was winter, in a blistering cold. He ran out into the courtyard. "What's the matter with you, Dostoevsky?" - "Oh, pardon me, it's awful! Everywhere I show myself, everyone laughs at me. No sooner did I show up on your doorstep than you and your guests made fun of me. Aren't you ashamed?" 

Of course, Turgenev somewhat caricatured the confusion with Dostoevsky, but the story is fundamentally true, as can be seen at least from the way Dostoevsky later repaid Turgenev by drawing a caricature portrait of him in The Possessions. But that is beside the point. The authenticity of Turgenev's story is also given by the repetition of this kind of narration. For example, contemporaries of Alexander I reported: "One day Kisilev, Orlov and Kutuzov were standing by the window in the courtyard telling each other jokes and laughing. Alexander passed by. Ten minutes later Kisilev was summoned to his office. The general found Alexander in front of a mirror. The emperor was carefully examining himself from all sides. He decided that they were laughing at him, at his appearance. " What is so funny about me? Why did you and Kutuzov and Orlov laugh at me?" - questioned the suspicious emperor..." 

The richest material for analyzing the motives of behavior and reactions of the 3rd Will is provided by the figure of Stalin - the most terrible man in world history. The essence of his psychological flaw was perfectly set forth by Nikolai Bukharin, an associate and victim of the tyrant, saying that Stalin "is unhappy because he cannot convince everyone, even himself, that he is above everyone.... and for this very "unhappiness" he cannot but take revenge on people. Indeed, the thirst for revenge against society for his sense of inferiority was the main incentive for Stalin's actions, from his choice of a career as a revolutionary to his later bloody purges. 

However, there was another nuance, not noticed by Bukharin, which greatly exacerbated the state of Stalin's already initially sick soul: bodily defects. The fact is that if a "petty bourgeois" like Stalin has a Physic on top, and this circumstance is accompanied by a significant physical defect, the vulnerability of his spirit increases many times over. An acquaintance of Byron conveyed his words: "If this, - he put his finger to his forehead, - elevates me above people, this (pointing to his leg) puts me below all others. Indeed, Byron's limp, Beethoven's deafness, Dostoevsky's epilepsy turned the lives of these mentally not very healthy, but essentially cheerful people into a chronic nightmare. It was the same with Stalin. Overgrown toes, traces of smallpox on his face, and his dry hand, which developed over time, hyperbolized Stalin's inferiority complex to cosmic proportions. From the combination of the 3rd Will and physical defects grew basically the phenomenon of Stalin, where everything acquired monstrous proportions: hypocrisy, unscrupulousness, guile, cruelty. 

One of Stalin's secretaries wrote: "Gradually myths and legends were created about him. For example, about his extraordinary will, firmness and determination. This is a myth. Stalin is an extremely cautious and indecisive man. He very often does not know how to be and what to do, I have seen many times how he hesitates, is undecided and rather prefers to follow events than to lead them..." 

This statement would seem to contradict numerous memoirs that speak of Stalin's extraordinary mental strength, elevating him almost to demonism. Here is one of them: "Stalin possessed some kind of hypnotic power, menacing, demonic power... The very place of the interviews, as I perceived it, resembled a field of demonic powers at night. It was enough Stalin appeared in the room, and everyone around him, as if he stopped breathing, froze. With him came danger. There was an atmosphere of fear. ” 

But, strange as it may seem, there is no contradiction between the two testimonies cited. Each person does not inspire society with anything; each person simply brings to it what he or she carries within him or herself. The "tsar" infects society with energy and ambition, the "nobleman" with peace and good-naturedness, the "burgher" with anxiety and uncertainty. Therefore, the atmosphere of fear that arose in society when Stalin appeared was not due to some "demonic power", but the fear that the tyrant felt of those around him, and which invisibly infected them. Each person has his own aura, his own field. The specifics of "petty-bourgeois" aura is that it is saturated with nervousness, anxiety and self-doubt, and a person, having got into its field, is quite capable of being infected by the same moods for the time of contact. Just as, however, one can be infected with calmness in the society of a "nobleman" and with energy in the society of a "tsar. 

If the reader remembers, the desire for collegiality in decision-making is one of the attributes of the Will's processionalism. In the "bourgeois," the Will is processional, so he, too, is a supporter of collegiality. But he interprets it rather peculiarly. There are two variants. If the 3rd Will is in subordination, it tends to influence the decision, but takes no responsibility for it. If the 3rd Will is the boss, she prefers to be the sole decision-maker, but takes no responsibility, or shares the responsibility with other people who are not involved in the decision-making. Here is a typical example: when in 1942 Stalin decided to cheer up the fallen spirit of the troops, he turned to the names, traditions and attributes of the tsarist army. Among other things, Stalin decided to introduce shoulder straps and gave appropriate instructions to Army General Khrulev. Later the general recollected: "As time passed and the question was not resolved, in early January 1943 I insistently asked not to delay the introduction of epaulets. Stalin asked me reproachfully: "Why do you bother with these epaulets and uniforms?" I had no choice but to say that everything was being done on his orders, and the decision, whatever it might be, was important to us. 

Stalin ordered me to show him all the prepared samples. Having received his consent, I summoned Colonel General Drachev, the chief intendant, who in 15 minutes was already in Stalin's waiting room with all the shoulder straps and modified uniforms. Stalin ordered him to be put through to Kalinin. Kalinin immediately called and Stalin asked him to come in. In 10-15 minutes Kalinin entered. 

"Here Comrade Kalinin," he said, "Khrulev suggests we restore the old regime" (one can imagine Khrulev's face at this moment - A.A.). Kalinin, taking his time, looked at all the samples and said: "You see, the old regime is remembered by you and me, but young people do not remember it. And if this form is liked by the young can be useful in the war against fascism, then this form should be accepted." Stalin was quick to respond, exclaiming: "And you, Comrade Kalinin, are for the old regime?" (it was time for Kalinin's face to stretch out-A.A.). Kalinin reiterated that he was not for the old regime, but for the benefit the form could bring to the fight against the enemy. Probably our insistence and support of M. I. Kalinin had an effect this time, and the decision to introduce shoulder straps was made." 

I hope the reader has paid attention to the virtuosity with which Stalin shifted responsibility for the delicate decision made by him alone to Khrulev and Kalinin. Such behavior is typical of the 3rd Will. 

Irresponsibility is a characteristic feature of the 3rd Will; it is more difficult for it than for anyone else to take responsibility, to keep one's word, to be punctual, etc. And this is understandable. The "philistine" is too busy with himself, with his own illnesses and wounds, with his fears of an imaginably hostile world, to think seriously about others and to be responsible for himself. 

The "philistine" to the grave is a child: dependent, irresponsible, selfish, capricious, wicked. "My father is a big child, which I acquired when I was very young," Dumas the son bitterly quipped. However, in the question of the age of the "burgher" should make some clarification. A child in the true sense of the word would be better described as the possessor of the 4th Will (to be discussed later), while the upper two Wills are completely mature people. The 3rd Will is an intermediate state between adulthood and childhood, a "bourgeois" being an adolescent, and only in the context of this special age in a person's life, do the specific features of the psychology of the 3rd Will become clear. Khodasevich, recalling Gumilev, wrote: "He was surprisingly young at heart, and perhaps even in mind. He always seemed like a child to me. There was something childish in his barber haircut head, in his bearing, rather gymnasic than military. The same childishness was apparent in his fascination with Africa, war, and, finally, in the contrived importance which so astonished me when I first met him and which suddenly slipped away until he remembered and put it back on again. He liked to pretend to be an adult, as all children do. He loved to play the "maître," the literary authority of his "humiliates," that is, little poets and poetesses around him. The poetic children loved him very much. Sometimes, after his lectures on poetics, he would play tag with them - in the most literal, not figurative sense of the word. I saw this twice. Gumilev was then like a glorious fifth-grader who was playing around with the preparations. It was funny to see how in half an hour after that he, playing in the big one, was having a sedate conversation with AF Kony - and Kony was quite inferior to him in the importance of treatment." 

* * * 

If a "bourgeois" has Physics at the top, he is usually an unfaithful lover and spouse. And it is not the mighty power of high physics that is to blame. When the number of sexual contacts exceeds several dozens, it becomes clear that it is not peculiarities of physiology (not rich in variants) that drive the Don Juan from one partner to another. The source of a "bourgeois's" tendency to drag is in his attempt to assert himself personally through strong physics, to convince himself and others of the significance of his "self" through the quantity and quality of his love affairs. 

Quality" should not be understood as the partner's beauty, youth, or wealth (although they play a role as well); "quality" for the 3rd Will is primarily the partner's social status or some form of grace to which he is a partaker. For example, Pushkin seduced an old Greek woman only because, according to tradition, she was kissed by Byron, and put her name on his list of donjuanians. John F. Kennedy tried the same thing with sixty-year-old Marlene Dietrich. Vasily Rozanov married a much older former lover of his, Dostoevsky. And Yesenin could boast a whole fan of socially significant and grace-marked women: Chaliapin's daughter, Isadora Duncan, Tolstoy's granddaughter. 

Although it cannot be said that the "bourgeois's" donjouanism brings him only dividends. Yesenin, who came to America with Isadora Duncan and found his picture on the front pages of American newspapers, was furious when it turned out that the newspapers did not announce the arrival of the great Russian poet, but Duncan's husband. 

Ambition in general terribly muddies the purity of the sexual sensations experienced by the 3rd Will. It is not so much to please the flesh as to dominate and dominate often not over the person it holds in its arms, but over the person it is presenting. 

The subject of the love and marriage predilections of the "bourgeois" is boundless. Therefore, I will note only one more trait of his psychology - the tendency to mesalliance. Neither in love nor in marriage does the 3rd Will look for an equal. It either gives preference, in the Balzacian manner, to one who is older, richer, more noble, or vice versa - to one who is younger, poorer, more plebeian (Nabokov's "nymphets"). And the mechanism of such multidirectional preferences is quite transparent. Infantilism and despotism easily and naturally coexist in the soul of a "petty bourgeois", which is why, whichever way the mesalliance is directed, it always responds to one or another need of the Third Will. The main thing is that it should be a mesalliance. 

* * * 

The 3rd Will in principle does not admit its mistakes and faults. Although in 90 cases out of 100 it is it that is guilty and makes a mistake. At the same time, this does not mean that deep down, the "petty bourgeois" is not aware of the true state of affairs. On the contrary. He is aware of it and very well, but admitting his mistakes and faults is impossible for him, because for a "petty bourgeois" conscience it is tantamount to admitting his nothingness. Although it is precisely this kind of locking up and gives away his weakness. One of the women close to Gumilev wrote: "He was pretty stubborn, which is also rather indicative of his weak will. No matter how many stubborn people I met, they were all weak-willed. 

Gumilev admitted: "I know that I am wrong, but it is difficult for me to admit it to someone else. I cannot. Nor can I ask for forgiveness." 

Returning to the subject of combining the 3rd Will with the higher Physic, we would like to note that in this case locking is combined with attempts to make amends in the form of gifts. For example, one of Gogol's acquaintances, being in Rome, once had a strong argument with him, and then this happened: "...after a few thoughtful steps, Gogol ran up to the first lemonade stand in the street, of which there are many in Rome, chose two oranges and, coming back to us, gave me one of them with a serious expression. This orange touched me: it was made, so to speak, a formula by which Gogol expressed the inner need for some kind of concession and reconciliation. Another example: Byron, "once, throwing a stone at a sparrow, he bruised a little girl. She cried. They tried to get him to ask his forgiveness. He closed himself in stubborn anger. 

"-Do you know that I am Byron's son? - he told her. 

An hour later he brought his victim candy." 

I can confirm the system in the behavior of Gogol and Byron with my personal experience. One of my acquaintances, whose 3rd Will was combined with the 1st Physics, once again insulted her roommate and immediately after the quarrel ran to buy a shirt in a neighboring store. She did not apologize even once, but in time her roommate accumulated an impressive pile of shirts. 

* * * 

Everything is double in the soul of the "petty bourgeois. His attitude to fame is also twofold. On the one hand, he, foolishly, likes to repeat after Pushkin that fame - just a bright patch on a miserable t-shirt, but on the other hand - no one feels a more ardent thirst for fame as the 3rd Will. And if it happens to become famous, it drinks the cup of glory without burping and without being satiated. But here's the paradox: no matter how popular and loud praise, it always listens to "philistine" not without a secret bitterness, and the wine of fame for him is always a little poisoned. Firstly, it constantly seems that it is not enough, and the sound of "hallelujah" could be forced a little more. Secondly, deep down, the "burgher" himself does not believe that he is worthy of such recognition, and this, too, adds a significant spoonful of tar to the triumphant barrel of honey. Finally, in the most powerful, concordant and numerous chorus of praise there is always one true or imaginary detractor - and that is enough - with his single sour expression, he will poison the "petit bourgeois"'s holiday all at once. As Akhmatova very accurately said about Stalin, that he "listened to 'hooray' all day long and that he was a coryphaeus and generalissimo, and how he was loved, and in the evening some Frenchman on the radio says about him: "That moustache..." - and you start all over again." 

The 3rd Will adores titles, titles, diplomas, awards. It seems to her that they are the shell that will protect her weak, sick, mental body, that they are the certificates that will certify the fullness of her being, felt from within as inferior (Brezhnev). 

The Roman historian wrote of Tiberius who had just ascended the throne: "Although he did not hesitate to assume the supreme power, he immediately decided to use it, although he had already surrounded himself with armed men. A Roman historian wrote of the newly ascended the throne of Tiberius: "Although the supreme power he did not hesitate to immediately decide and take and use, although he surrounded himself with armed guards, the pledge and the sign of domination, yet in words he long refused to power, playing the most shameless comedy. Of course, the Romans would have been in serious trouble if they had refused to participate in this comedy and offered the title of emperor to someone else. But Tiberius had to be understood, too - he couldn't help but break down. 

If, however, the fate of the "petty bourgeois" is to be rewarded with titles, then it happens that the itch of vanity leads him to direct forgery. The example of Balzac, who arbitrarily attached to his plebeian surname the noble particle "de", is well known. In comparison, Goethe, with his 2nd Will, having deservedly received nobility, for a long time signed simply Goethe, without the aristocratic particle "von". 

* * * 

The "philistine" is a man of the crowd. He lacks self-confidence to lead people's movements, he lacks independence to stand on the sidelines, so the "philistine" usually makes up the thickest of social movements, the middle part of them. He is the ballast of society, which is incredibly difficult to move, and once moved, it is impossible to stop. 

The 3rd Will loves the crowd in its own way and feels comfortable in it at first. Finding itself among its own kind, it thinks that the sum of the weak is able to become a great force, which is only partly true. Besides, having entrusted her diseased spirit in the crowd to something stronger and more considerable than herself, the 3rd Will begins to breathe easily, thinking that she has thereby freed herself from the burdensome responsibility for herself and others, from the painful necessity of daily independent choice. 

However, the "philistine" would not be himself if, feeling the comfort of the dissolution of his vulnerable personality into the crowd, he were not simultaneously secretly rebelling against it and striving to break free. The loss of individuality is the dream and pain of the 3rd Will. The writer Zamyatin, under the impression of the 1905 revolution, wrote to his fiancée, "But it is almost happiness! (...) When something picks you up, like a wave, rushes you somewhere, and you no longer have a will of your own - how wonderful! You do not know this feeling? Haven't you ever been swimming in the surf?" Fifteen years later, the same Zamyatin published his prophetic novel-antiutopia "We", imbued with a savage horror of the coming socialist impersonality. 

* * * 

Let's give credit where credit is due, the "burgher" is as talented as anyone. And there are at least three reasons for this. First, the position of other functions on the steps of the psychic hierarchy gives him power and freedom in any kind of creativity. A "petty bourgeois" has a weak motor of creativity - the Will, but the whole set of instruments for various operations: intellectual, artistic, material - is quite free. Secondly, the subtlety of the psychic organization of the 3rd Will gives a refined and refined touch to this type of creativity. Thirdly, the 3rd Will is talented already because it is secretly, but frantically and insatiably ambitious. Finally, and most importantly, the dislike of oneself and of others, the critical view of the world that is typical of the "philistine" is an ideal creative incentive that makes it possible to find flaws, deficiencies, and opportunities for change where other Wills, who have a more complacent view of the world, simply do not see them. 

It may seem that there is a certain contradiction in the statement about the possibility of talent in the absence of a strong personality core. But in fact there is no contradiction here. Berdyaev wrote: "Andrei Bely, an exceptionally bright, original and creative individual, used to say about himself that he had no personality, no 'I'. Sometimes it seemed that he was proud of it. This only confirmed for me the difference between individuality and personality. Quite rightly noted. The brilliance of an individual is not yet a guarantee of a strong personality, and mighty talent is not necessarily identical with the mighty "I." Or, as Faina Ranevskaya brilliantly put it, "Talent, like a pimple, can also pop up on your ass." 

At the same time, there is also a limit to the talent of the "bourgeois", invisibly delineated by his own 3rd Will. For all the vagueness of the panegyric terminology, which is unable to separate talent from talent and talent from genius, we can say with confidence that the path of genius and genuine revelation is not a "bourgeois" path. The fact is that the work of the Third Will is inevitably accompanied by an element of "popsovism," conjuncture, i.e. an inner openness to the opinion of the crowd, an element of fear of social evaluation, hanging on his hands as a weight. No matter how radical in art, science, or industry a "petty bourgeois" looks, he always knows that he is not alone, but in a certain crowd and fulfills a certain social order. The inability to achieve genuine independence is the misfortune of the 3rd Will, not only in everyday life, but also in creativity, the fruits of which in their highest manifestations are "pop", however resplendent. 

* * * 

The external aspect of the mental image of the 3rd Will is well conveyed in one description of Gogol, made by his contemporary: "There was something unfree, compressed, crumpled into a fist in the whole figure. No scope, nothing open anywhere, not in any movement, not in any look." The inner unfreedom and crumpled spirit, characteristic of the 3rd Will, manifested in mimicry and plastique, are very typical indeed. 

But especially noticeable is the gaze; it is, as in all other cases, the most striking external sign of the 3rd Will. More precisely, its elusiveness. The degree of furtiveness of the gaze in the 3rd Will is different, depending on the depth of the Third Will's ulcer. The "running eyes" often described in the literature are quite rare, and are a sign of the extreme degree of weakness of the Will. More often a "bourgeois" is such an expression of the eyes, as described by Gorky, talking about Yesenin: "From the curly, toy boy remained only very clear eyes, and they seem to have burned out in some too bright sun. Their restless gaze slid over people's faces erratically, then defiantly and disdainfully, then, suddenly, uncertainly, embarrassed and distrustful. It seemed to me that in general he was unfriendly toward people." I should add that typical of the 3rd Will is an unsteady, elusive, as it were, floating look. This is the first time that you have seen a person, and the second time that you have seen someone else, and you cannot tell what color his eyes are. 

The 3rd Will knows that there is something wrong with her eyes and sometimes resorts to all sorts of disguises. Most often, black glasses are used in such cases. This practice is an old one, established back in the days when black glasses were worn only by the blind. About one gifted émigré poet it was said: "...he was an excellent orator. And this despite his extremely unprofitable appearance - the appearance of a blind man. Hence the black glasses concealing his seemingly blind eyes. He can see perfectly well, though. He himself must have been aware of the strange impression his eyes made and never took off his black glasses. 

After all, the eyes are the mirror of the soul. But his eyes were hardly the mirror of the soul. They were strange, unpleasant eyes, which made a repulsive impression on many people. They did not reflect his soul - the soul of a poet. 

His black glasses were sometimes useful, though. In the subway and on buses, even in busy hours, there was always a seat for him: give way to the blind. 

There are more interesting inventions than black glasses. Stalin found an almost ingenious way out. The pipe. Constantly manipulating the pipe: then stuffing it, then cleaning it, then lighting it, constantly extinguished - he could as much as you want to mow his eyes - the elusiveness of the look in this case always looked quite natural. 

Another reliable external sign of the 3rd Will is the sour, aloof, angry expression that the "petty bourgeois" most often puts on his face. Which, one must admit, greatly spoils the usually attractive features of "bourgeois" faces. The Marquis de Custine accurately described this expression on the handsome face of Nicholas I. He reported: "When you first look at the sovereign, you cannot help but notice a characteristic feature of his face - some restless sternness. Physiognomists do not unreasonably assert that hardness of heart harms the beauty of the face." 

The vocabulary of the 3rd Will, apparently by analogy with the inner state, has a markedly lowered character; it is rich in slang, blattic words, and simple swear words. In general, the 3rd Will has a special talent for scolding, insulting, and boorish. No one is as gifted at verbal abuse as a "bourgeois. I knew an Orthodox metropolitan who would knock out almost strangers with a single phrase. The 3rd Will is the thinnest mental membrane, and the combination of this membrane with a predilection for low, profane, merciless words makes the "bourgeois" a terrible opponent in verbal battles. 

A very reliable sign of the 3rd Will can be considered the markedly reduced forms of address of the "petty bourgeois" to his relatives. Of course, these forms differ depending on the language and people. As for Russian "bourgeois" people, they like to address their relatives either by the reduced form of the name (Ninka, Petka, etc.), or by the surname (remember Chekhov's textbook hopscotch - "Dymov!"). 

* * * 

In terms of his tastes, the "philistine" (pardon the tautology) is a classic philistine. His inherent dependence on other people's opinions, on his environment, on society, makes the "philistine" a hostage to fashion, and moreover, to fashion in its most banal, most impersonal form. And this hostage does not only not weigh on the Third Will, but can sometimes give it a genuine satisfaction. I remember how my friend's first impressions of the army struck me when he said, almost excitedly, "Can you imagine? I'm bald, and everybody around me is bald. I'm in green, and everybody's in green. I loved it so much..." The most striking thing is that I heard this confession from the lips of a professional artist. 

Or here is another extremely expressive confession made in an interview with the famous pop singer George Michael. When asked why the furniture in his house is so boring, he replied, "I prefer boring furniture. Who knows, maybe next to some priceless piece of furniture I would look completely mediocre. There must be no more character in my furniture than in myself." A real revelation, a staggeringly full, capacious, and accurate statement of the 3rd Will's tastes. As, indeed, tastes in general. Let us recall that in the house of Gogol's Sobakevich, the furniture screamed: "And me! And I am Sobakevich!" Our tastes are us in our material expression, and everything our hand touches bears the imprint of our psyche.