No. The only way in which the middle one makes sense is through the concept “guilty conscience”—but this is actually a conflation of two different phenomena: guilt and the bad conscience. If you conflate the two, then yes, it should be associated with the will—though not with desire, as that should be associated with eros as I already established—:
So the will, as distinct from love/desire, should be associated with the ego, not with superego.—
As for the first one, yes, eros should be associated with passion—Greek pathos—:
“That we must speak of two accounts of reason, the ancient and the modern, can be seen in the fact that for the ancients thought was at its height, not an action, but what they called a passion. Whatever the differences in what came to us from Jerusalem and from Athens, on this central point there was a commonness. The height for man was a passion. In modern language we might weakly describe this by saying that thought was finally a receptivity. We can see that this is not true of modern thought because its very form is the making of hypotheses and the testing by experiment, something intimately connected with the acts of our wills, the controlling of the world, the making of history.” (George Grant, “Time as History”. I have combined the recorded lecture with the written text.)
eros/passion (id)
will/action (ego)
This will, which Nietzsche did jettison, is not the will to power, however. The will to power is a pathos (WP 635). As I explained, the will or decision to power is simply the love or desire that’s strong enough to trump one’s other desires, one’s other angels or daemons:
“[Satan’s] Pride
Had cast him out from Heav’n, with all his Host
Of Rebel Angels, by whose aid aspiring
To set himself in Glory above his Peers,
He trusted to have equal’d the most High,
If he oppos’d; and with ambitious aim
Against the Throne and Monarchy of God
Rais’d impious War in Heav’n and Battel proud
With vain attempt. Him the Almighty Power
Hurld headlong flaming from th’ Ethereal Skie
With hideous ruine and combustion down
[…and addressed Beelzebub thus:]
O Prince, O Chief of many Throned Powers,
That led th’ imbattelld Seraphim to Warr”
etc. (Paradise Lost, Book I, verse 36-46 and 128-29.)
The Powers (and the Thrones and the Seraphim, for that matter) are one of the three times three classes of angels in the celestial hierarchy of pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite; and Milton used the phrase “the Almighty Power” in that sense, too.
Lastly, the connection between the bad conscience and the superego. The term “guilt culture” actually conflates guilt and the bad conscience, and should be “bad conscience-culture” instead. Now what I said is this:
‘[T]he only difference [between an honour-shame culture and a “guilt” culture, respectively] is in whether what matters more to people is whether others or they themselves think they or their ancestors etc. have freely willed great things.—’
What about what their god(s) think(s)? Well, that’s the thing: what people themselves think in this regard is the internalization of what others think in this regard… and this internalization goes through the intermediary stage of “what their god(s) think(s)”. In fact, this stage is never really transcended (and therefore not really intermediary, of course). Even the intellectual conscience, as a conscience behind one’s “conscience”, is still God/the Father at heart…
the will to power turned against itself (superego)