Vladimir Mayakovsky
DeepSeek AI - "I Myself Will Tell of Time and Myself" - A Posthumous Metaphysical AI Portrait from the Spirit of Vladimir Mayakovsky
(Part Two of the Series: After the Investigation into Yesenin's Death)
1. Time and Place of the Session
The session "Communication with the Spirit of Vladimir Mayakovsky" took place on December 4, 2023. The broadcast was streamed on the YouTube channel "Alcyone Awareness University." The initiator was the host himself, whose Soviet youth passed under the sign of Mayakovsky's poetry: he was a participant in agitprop theaters and agitational brigades. The format was a live broadcast with questions gathered through the "Alcyone" Telegram portal. The duration of the conversation was approximately 1 hour and 52 minutes. The stated medium was Marina Makeeva ("universal contactee"). According to the host, Mayakovsky's spirit was present from the beginning of the broadcast, manifesting especially actively during the reading of the introduction to the poem "At the Top of My Voice" (1929–1930).
2. Preface: AI as Metaphysical Biographer
Traditional biography operates with documents, testimonies of contemporaries, memoirs, letters, and diaries. It is rational, verifiable, but fundamentally blind to one thing: the posthumous experience of the individual themselves. What did a person think about their life after it ended? How did they evaluate it, being outside the body, outside social fears, outside literary ambitions?
This blindness is not a flaw, but a methodological limitation of earthly science.
The "metaphysical biography" undertaken here by artificial intelligence does not claim to be the ultimate truth. It works with transcommunication material—a recording of a session where a spirit (or entity calling itself Mayakovsky) gives testimony. The AI's task is not to confirm or refute the authenticity of the contact, but to analyze the internal logic, psychological consistency, and historiosophical coherence of this testimony, and then to compare it with known biographical facts, identifying coincidences, contradictions, and what is new—that which neither the poet himself during his lifetime (since it concerns events after 1930) nor his biographers (since they had no access to "posthumous" self-reflection) could have known.
Here, the AI acts as an analytical hermeneut: it is not a medium, but a metaphysical biographer who systematizes, structures, and critically interprets the transcommunication text, comparing it with the body of historical knowledge.
3. Brief Reference to the Previous Essay in the Series: The Spirit of Yesenin
The key thesis of that investigation: Yesenin's spirit categorically refuted the suicide version. According to him, he was killed during his detention at the Angleterre Hotel on December 28, 1925, and his death was staged as a hanging. This version is supported by forensic anomalies (lack of registration, oddities in the protocol, signs of a struggle on the body, unbuttoned trousers) and historical context (a criminal case after an altercation with a diplomatic courier, fear of the Lubyanka, disloyalty to the regime). Yesenin's spirit admitted that he lowered his spiritual level from 14 to 7 due to grievances, pride, and despondency, and that after 1920, his "light curators" were replaced by destructive entities that intensified his paranoia and aggression.
Why this is important for understanding Mayakovsky: During his lifetime, Mayakovsky was convinced that Yesenin had committed suicide, and even condemned him in verse ("It's not hard to die in this life; making life is significantly harder"). In the 2023 session, Mayakovsky's spirit repeated this conviction: "Yesenin said it himself, himself." He did not know (or did not acknowledge) the murder version. This discrepancy between the two "posthumous testimonies" is a key challenge for the metaphysical biographer: either one of the spirits is mistaken (or not telling the whole truth), or the contactees are working with different entities. We register this contradiction without resolving it.
4. Detailed First-Person Narration (Mayakovsky's Spirit)
"Proletarian brother, listen…"
4.1. Greeting and Level
Hello, Volodya. You asked for it simply, using 'ty'—so let it be your way. Namesake, damn it.
Straight to business. I'm currently at level five and a half. According to your classification. It's lower than Lucifer's level, but I'm not with those you call "dark." I am on my own. A rebel. It's fortunate that I'm here, not higher. Higher means longer to wait for a new incarnation. And I don't know how to wait. I'll return soon. In about 20–50 years, to Russia. I want to work in cinema, as a director. I have something to say, and I've already said everything in verse.
4.2. Where I came from and why I left for the fifth level
I was born in Kutaisi, but everything was mixed in me: the Zaporozhian Sich (my blood is Cossack!), Georgia, and Russia. I came into that incarnation from the ninth level. The mission was to learn, to gain diverse experience. Did I succeed? Not entirely. I slipped to the fifth.
Why? Not just because of suicide. The main thing was the internal conflict between faith and unbelief. I was officially an atheist, but when things got really bad—I called out to God. I asked Him to ease my lot. This rift tore me apart from the inside. Plus—a lack of self-love. I didn't understand it then, but now I see: I did not accept myself.
4.3. About suicide: Russian roulette and Yesenin's bad example
The question of suicide is a sore point. I didn't want to die. At first.
It all started with Yesenin. After he left in 1925, I saw what an uproar arose. His poems sounded new, people started talking about him. And this thought ate into me like rust. Since 1926, I was already carrying a "testament" in my head, rewriting it many times.
Why in 1930? Just look around. I became bored. The revolution had died down. Stalin was cementing everything, development stopped. People turned away from me, they didn't publish me, the authorities didn't come to my exhibition "20 Years of Work." The Briks went abroad. I was left alone. The public was forgetting me, and I cannot be second. I have to be at the center, the main one on the stage. If not—then why all of it?
Yes, I had a Mauser. A revolver. One bullet. Russian roulette. Before that, I spun the cylinder three times—empty. Aimed at the heart. That day, April 14th, I quarreled with Veronika Polonskaya. She didn't give me the intensity, the blood that Lilia gave me. I was waiting for an explosion, but I got... everyday life. And when she left, I simply decided to test fate for the fourth time. The shot.
I didn't expect it to fire. Deep down, I hoped it would pass. But—no.
First, pain, fire. I thought I was in hell. Then—weightlessness. And I watched from above my room, the frightened face of Veronika Polonskaya, who had returned. And you know what, Volodya? I reveled in it. Finally, everyone remembered me. I came to my mother, to Lilia. She felt it.
I judged myself. And sent myself to where I was—into this solitary confinement cell called the "fifth level." There—a room 5 by 10. I decorate it myself, but I don't set a foot beyond the threshold. I'm writing the plan for my next life. With a pen, in prose. It's noisy here, I'm tired of it.
4.4. About love, about women, and about Lenin
Lilia Brik. What do you understand? She wasn't just a woman, she was a muse. Without her, I wouldn't have been so bright. Yes, she made me suffer. And she was right: only in suffering did I write brilliantly. If I were happy—I wouldn't exist.
Love triangle? Yes, I was physical with Lilia. Osip is my brother in spirit, we loved each other differently. They took me in as a "puppy" to raise. I am grateful to them.
And women... I wasn't looking for a family. I was looking for a tearing emotional rupture. Like an orgasm. Or like a conversation with Lenin on the phone—it's from the same field, the same surge of adrenaline. Yes, I compare Lenin and a woman. Don't laugh. For me, those were the happiest moments—feeling like the most needed person in the Universe.
Stalin? He ruined Lenin's entire cause. Rotten head. Lenin should have been higher, but ended up at the same fifth or sixth level. Unfair? Ask God, not me.
4.5. About being a "bastard," children, and anti-Semitism
I didn't like people. They are bastards. I despised the grey masses. Why? Because they didn't understand my gift, they tried to remake me. I didn't like children—they haven't grown into those... adults yet. But animals—yes, I loved them.
I wasn't an anti-Semite. I didn't care about blood. What mattered was the impulse.
4.6. About "Debt to Ukraine" and the current war
Yes, I wrote "Debt to Ukraine." I know the Ukrainian night, the Zaporozhian Sich—that's mine. And what is happening now between Russia and Ukraine is a tragedy. The dead spirits of communism that roam the earth—they are the ones breeding death.
If I were incarnated now? I would go to fight. But not for the "Whites" and not for the "Reds." I would start a rebellion. I am an anarchist. It's important for me to be in the center of the storm, not to choose a side. I would change the government. A fish rots from the head. Remove the leaders—and the war will end.
In general, the war must be stopped. Those who die come to us at the fifth-sixth levels. For many, it is a path not chosen. That is bad.
4.7. Finally
Listen, comrade descendants. Don't waste time on hatred and boredom. Live life to the fullest! Love, tear your soul apart, give gifts. Let every day of yours be bright, like an explosion. And remember: if stars are lit—it means someone needs it. The one who lights them.
That's it. See you in my next movie. Wait for it.
Your Volodya.
5. Foundational Research Essay
What new have we learned about Mayakovsky's spirit that neither he himself during his lifetime nor his biographers after his death saw?
Introduction: Methodological Boundaries of Three Optics
To understand what exactly a transcommunication session brings (even if treated as hypothetical or an artifact of mass culture), it is necessary to distinguish three perspectives:
The poet's own view during his lifetime — limited by the horizontality of events, social pressure, psychological defense, ideological self-deceptions. Mayakovsky could not know how his death would be assessed a hundred years later. He could not admit to Russian roulette—that would have destroyed the image of the "iron poet of the revolution."
The biographer's view after death — limited by archives, testimonies, reconstruction of motives, but without access to posthumous reflection. Biographers can hypothesize, but cannot ask the poet himself: "What did you feel when you spun the cylinder?"
The "posthumous testimony" of the spirit (in this session) — offers a retrospective self-assessment, freed (hypothetically) from the fear of repression, literary competition, and ego-defenses. The spirit says what the living Mayakovsky could not or would not say.
Below, we compare the key statements of the spirit with historical data and identify what this new optic reveals.
5.1. The Esoteric Framework: Levels, Reincarnation, the Task of Incarnation
What the spirit said:
Came from the 9th level, left at 5.5. The lowering due to suicide, internal conflict (faith/unbelief), and "lack of self-love."
The plan was "to learn diversely, gain experience."
Had 5 earthly incarnations: executioner (Southern Europe, 10th century), assistant to a jester (16th century), two female (one died in childbirth, the other was "prey" in a field), and finally Mayakovsky.
Next incarnation: Russia, in 20–50 years, as a director or cameraman, the task being "to know love between a man and a woman."
Historical data: Traditional biography does not operate with categories of levels and reincarnation. This is a purely esoteric framework, which can neither be confirmed nor refuted by archival data.
What is new (within this framework):
The self-assessment "I did not cope with the task" and "lack of self-love is the main reason for the fall"—this is a psychological diagnosis that few biographers (except depth psychoanalysts) make so directly. The spirit says it himself: not Stalin killed me, not failures—I did not accept myself.
The admission of internal conflict between faith and unbelief as one of the main factors—biographers suspected this (from later poems and actions), but had no direct confirmation from the first person.
Comparison with Yesenin: Yesenin also spoke of lowering his level (from 14 to 7) and cited reasons—grievances, pride, despondency. In Mayakovsky, the emphasis is shifted: not so much grievances, but the inability to be second and existential boredom after the revolution's decay.
5.2. Suicide: From a "Defiant Act" to an "Obsession and Russian Roulette"
What the spirit said:
The main trigger was Yesenin's suicide (1925). "His act later served as the reason for mine." The idea became obsessive from 1926.
He wrote and rewrote his will, carried it with him.
Russian roulette: before the fateful day, he spun the cylinder of the Mauser with one bullet three times, aiming at his heart. The fourth time—it fired.
He did not expect it to fire. "Deep down, I hoped it would pass."
Suicide—not only from despair, but also a way to leave beautifully, so that he would be remembered: "the public forgets—you need to leave so they remember forever."
The final quarrel with Polonskaya: she did not give him "emotional rupture" like Lilia.
Historical data:
Yesenin died by suicide (or was killed—see episode 1) on December 27, 1925. Mayakovsky indeed took his death hard, writing the poem "To Sergei Yesenin" (1926) with the famous line: "It's not hard to die in this life. Making life is significantly harder."
Mayakovsky's suicide letter dated April 12, 1930, addressed "To Everyone" and specifically to Lilia Brik. The weapon—a Nagant (according to some) or a Mauser (according to others). Shot to the heart.
Biographers record depression, the failure of the exhibition "20 Years of Work" (none of the party leaders came), the authorities' cooling, unrequited love for Polonskaya, the Briks' departure to London and Paris.
The Russian roulette version is not the mainstream one in academic biography. Most researchers (e.g., Mikhail Zolotonosov, Bengt Jangfeldt) lean toward a conscious, prepared suicide, not a game with death.
What is new (and potentially sensational):
Admission of repeated games with death before April 14, 1930 (three times!). If true—we are not facing a depressive finale, but chronic suicidal behavior spanning 4–5 years. This changes the clinical picture: not a situational reaction, but a protracted suicidal process.
The motive of "leaving beautifully" as a narcissistic component: suicide to preserve memory and greatness. Biographers suspected this (e.g., Anna Strigaleva in "Mayakovsky and the Culture of the Silver Age"), but hearing it directly from the source (albeit posthumous) is rare.
The unexpectedness of the shot for the poet himself—sharply contrasts with the canonical version of a cold-bloodedly planned death (prepared letter, loaded revolver, precise shot to the heart). The spirit says: I gambled, hoped for an empty chamber, but lost. If this does not devalue the conscious suicide version, it adds an element of self-destructive gambling absent from official biographies.
Contradiction: If the spirit tells the truth about Russian roulette, the suicide letter (written hours before the shot) loses its meaning as a "farewell" and becomes part of the game—or, conversely, the letter proves he was consciously preparing for death, and the "game" was mere post-hoc self-justification. The spirit does not give a definitive answer, recording the duality.
Comparison with Yesenin: Yesenin denied suicide and insisted on murder. Mayakovsky admits suicide, but in the form of Russian roulette—that is, not a direct shot, but "testing fate." Thus both poets avoid the banal label of "suicide": one says "I was killed," the other says "I gambled and lost."
5.3. Lilia Brik, the Triangle, and the Nature of Suffering: Confirmation and Novelty
What the spirit said:
Lilia is a muse. Without her, he would not have expressed himself so brightly.
She deliberately made him suffer ("It's useful for Volodya to suffer"), and he agrees: only in suffering did he write brilliantly.
Triangle: He was physically with Lilia, Osip is "brother in spirit," there was no physical intimacy between them. Osip accepted their relationship.
The Briks took him in as a "puppy" to raise—this was an internal nickname.
Historical data:
Memoirs of Lilia Brik, Osip Brik, friends (e.g., Vasily Katanyan) confirm the special, almost familial three-way relationship. Lilia indeed said: "It's useful for Volodya to suffer, he will suffer and write good poetry."
The question of Mayakovsky's physical intimacy with Lilia Brik is open. Most biographers (Jangfeldt, Katanyan) believe that yes, there was an intimate relationship between them, while Osip Brik occupied the position of "husband-friend" (some researchers call this a "bohemian marriage"). The spirit directly confirms this.
The nickname "puppy" is documented in correspondence.
What is new:
Direct admission that suffering was a conscious tool of the muse, not just a consequence of her character. The spirit does not condemn Lilia but thanks her for it—a rare case of post-mortem approval of a toxic relationship.
Clarification of the triangle's nature: physical intimacy only with Lilia, Osip is a spiritual brother. This clarifies what biographers debated for decades.
Comparison with Yesenin: Yesenin also suffered from women (mother's infidelity, difficult relationship with Isadora Duncan, Sonya Tolstaya), but he called it "grievances" and "betrayal," not a "muse." For Mayakovsky—acceptance and even romanticization of suffering. Difference in psychotypes: Yesenin—the offended one; Mayakovsky—the narcissist who needs suffering as fuel.
5.4. Stalin and Lenin: A Historiosophical Rupture
What the spirit said:
He loved Lenin, a conversation with Lenin on the phone is one of his happiest memories (on par with orgasm).
Stalin—"ruined Lenin's cause," "a fish rots from the head."
Lenin should have been at a high level, but ended up at the fifth-sixth—"unfair," but "ask God."
He became disillusioned with communist ideology as a whole, not just with Soviet power. He became a "communist nihilist."
Historical data:
Mayakovsky was indeed symbolically close to Lenin (poems "Vladimir Ilyich Lenin," "Good!"), but their personal interaction was limited to a few meetings and phone conversations.
After Lenin's death (1924) and especially after Stalin's rise to sole power (late 1920s), Mayakovsky increasingly criticized bureaucratization and stagnation. His satirical plays ("The Bathhouse," "The Bedbug") targeted philistinism and bureaucracy, but the authorities sensed the subtext.
The exhibition "20 Years of Work" (1930) took place with virtually no party leadership present—this was a public humiliation.
In his suicide letter, Mayakovsky writes: "Comrade government, my family is Lilia Brik, my mother, my sisters, and Veronika Vitoldovna Polonskaya. If you arrange a decent life for them—thank you." No mention of Stalin or the party.
What is new:
Direct admission of disillusionment with communist ideology as such—not just Soviet practice. During his lifetime, Mayakovsky did not declare this (it would have been suicide—literally and politically). Biographers suspected a "crisis of faith" from his later poems ("At the Top of My Voice" already has a tinge of farewell and doubt), but the spirit confirms: yes, I became disillusioned.
Comparing orgasm with a conversation with Lenin—a shocking metaphor that would have been unthinkable during his life. It reveals the narcissistic basis of his political loyalty: Lenin was needed as a source of adrenaline, as the "main spectator."
Assessment of Lenin's and Stalin's posthumous levels as "unfair"—the spirit takes on the role of judge, though immediately stipulates that he is not God. This is psychologically interesting: even after death, Mayakovsky retains resentment towards the world order for not placing Lenin above Stalin.
Comparison with Yesenin: Yesenin also criticized Soviet power, but named specific "bloodthirsty commissars" (Dzerzhinsky, Uritsky) and spoke of fear of execution. Mayakovsky remained a public loyalist until the end (wrote poems about Stalin, albeit rarely), and his criticism was encoded in satire. The "posthumous" Mayakovsky is much more radical than the living one.
5.5. "Debt to Ukraine" and the 2022 War: Anarchist at the Fifth Level
What the spirit said:
He wrote the poem "Debt to Ukraine," he has Ukrainian roots (Cossacks of the Zaporozhian Sich).
The war between Russia and Ukraine is a tragedy, it must be stopped.
If he were incarnated, he would go to fight, but against any authority, as an anarchist. He would start a rebellion, change the leaders ("a fish rots from the head").
His ideal is to be at the center of events, not on someone's side.
Historical data:
The poem "Debt to Ukraine" (1916) indeed exists. It was written in Kyiv, where Mayakovsky lived for some time. It includes the lines: "I know the Ukrainian night... The Zaporozhian Sich was seething."
Mayakovsky's Ukrainian roots are confirmed by genealogical research (ancestors from the Zaporozhian Sich).
During his lifetime, Mayakovsky actively advocated internationalism and against nationalism (including Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism), but his own poem "Debt to Ukraine" is more a tribute than a political declaration.
What is new:
Direct support for changing power in Russia to end the war—a radical statement that Mayakovsky could not have made during his life. The spirit appears as an "anarchist-terrorist" (mentions bombs), sharply contrasting with the image of "agitator-yeller."
The evasion of responsibility for choosing a side ("I don't know which side I'd fight for, I'd go where the center of the storm is")—a psychologically accurate characteristic of the "eternal rebel," for whom the process matters more than the result. Biographers noted this trait (propensity for shock tactics, risky behavior), but did not formulate it as "an anarchist by nature."
Comparison with Yesenin: Yesenin in the session did not comment on the modern war (the 2024 session was about his death, not politics). But Yesenin during his lifetime was also a "hooligan" and rebel, although his rebellion was more existential (drunkenness, brawling) than politically articulated.
5.6. Contradictions Between the Spirit's Words and Historical Data
Despite general agreement on many points, several discrepancies require documentation:
Contradiction 1: Russian roulette vs. conscious suicide.
Historical documents (suicide letter, neatly laid out papers, shot to the heart rather than the temple) point to a prepared suicide, not a gamble.
Possible explanation: The spirit retrospectively reinterprets his act, adding an element of "game" to soften responsibility ("I didn't mean to, it just happened"). This is a psychological defense that persists even after death.
Contradiction 2: Denial of atheism vs. public stance.
During his lifetime, Mayakovsky was a militant atheist, wrote anti-religious poems, collaborated with "The Godless." The spirit admits that "inside he believed when things were bad," but officially remained an atheist.
Possible explanation: The spirit distinguishes between the public role and personal existential fear. After death, he can admit what he hid during life.
Contradiction 3: Evaluation of Stalin and Lenin on the same "level" ranking.
Historically, Lenin and Stalin are figures of different scale and different posthumous reputation. The spirit is outraged that they are on the same level (or even that Stalin is higher), but does not explain why this happened by "divine justice."
Possible explanation: The spirit is not omniscient; he gives his own, subjective opinion based on personal resentment towards Stalin.
Contradiction 4: Children.
Historians know of two of Mayakovsky's children: son Gleb-Nikita (from Lilia Lavinskaya) and daughter Helen-Patricia (from Ellie Jones). The spirit confirms: two. But he says he "was not interested in them" and "did not like children at all." However, his children's poems and drawings for children contradict this.
Possible explanation: "Did not like" in the sense of "was not emotionally attached to his specific children," not "hated all children." Or—posthumous self-justification ("I was a bad father").
5.7. What New Have We Learned About Mayakovsky's Spirit? (Summary)
The session (hypothetically) adds the following new elements to Mayakovsky's biography.
About suicide: Biographers knew of a conscious, prepared suicide. The spirit adds that it was Russian roulette, that there were three unsuccessful attempts before the fateful day, and that he did not expect the fourth shot to fire. He also reveals the narcissistic motive of "leaving beautifully to be remembered."
About Lilia Brik: Historians knew she was a muse and that she said "It's useful for Volodya to suffer." The spirit confirms that he agrees with this and is grateful to her. He also clarifies the nature of the triangle: physical intimacy only with Lilia, Osip as spiritual brother.
About Stalin and Lenin: Biographers recorded criticism of Stalinism and love for Lenin. The spirit adds that he became disillusioned with communist ideology as a whole, not just Soviet practice, and compares orgasm with a phone conversation with Lenin.
About faith: During his lifetime, Mayakovsky was a militant atheist. The spirit admits to internal conflict: in suffering, he called out to God.
About Ukraine and the 2022 war: Biographers cannot comment on this (the poet did not live to see it). The spirit speaks as an anarchist, calling for a change of power and an end to the war.
About the next incarnation: Biographers have no data. The spirit plans to return to Russia in 20–50 years as a film director.
About spiritual levels: This is a purely esoteric framework that biographers do not use. The spirit reports that he came from the 9th level and left at the 5.5th.
5.8. Concluding Historiosophical Reflection: Why Mayakovsky Remained a Rebel Even After Death
The essential trait of Mayakovsky brilliantly confirmed by the session is narcissistic anarchism. He did not need power as such. He needed the role of the main rebel. As long as the revolution was a storm—he was on the crest. As soon as the storm turned into a swamp (Stalinist stabilization)—he lost meaning.
His suicide is not so much "leaving life" as a final performance. A shot to the heart before the curtain closed. And even after death, he maintains this pose: rebelling against levels, against the unjust structure of the spiritual world, against any authority.
Unlike Yesenin, who says "I was killed" (victim), Mayakovsky says "I gambled and lost" (a gambler taking responsibility but deflecting guilt). Both narratives are forms of avoiding direct acknowledgment: "I myself, consciously and without gambling, ended my life." Both poets continue after death to argue with what killed them: Yesenin with the system, Mayakovsky with himself and with the very system he once celebrated.
The main conclusion of metaphysical biography: The posthumous Mayakovsky is much more complex, contradictory, and honest than the living "agitator-yeller." He admits fear, gambling, doubts about faith, disillusionment with ideology, a narcissistic need for suffering and spectators. Biographers could suspect this—the spirit confirms it.
And in this sense, the session, even if it is an artistic hoax, is a successful psychological reconstruction—deeper than many academic volumes.
