Abstract

The study is motivated by two circumstances: first, a polemic with the concept of “impersonal” creativity, going back to M. Tsvetaeva’s ideas about the poet as a “receiver” of higher forces, as well as to the views of G.P. Shchedrovitsky. Second, the creation and development of large language models of AI, which demonstrate abilities previously considered the exclusive prerogative of humans—to generate new knowledge and create semiotic constructions. The central problem of the article is formulated as the question of the relationship between conscious and unconscious mechanisms in processes of creativity, and also of the extent to which man is a subject and to what extent a “medium” or anthropological condition of generated meanings. To solve this task, a methodological approach is proposed that combines the author’s concept of dreaming (which is generalized and corrected) and the author’s concept of “schemology” (a theory of the invention of complex signs that allow problematic situations to be resolved). Three diverse cases are chosen as the empirical base: 1) the adolescent visionary experience of C.G. Jung, where the author analyzes the mechanism of the psyche’s “response” to a latent conflict with subsequent conscious schematization; 2) the religious crisis of the God-seeker Akimushka, demonstrating the cyclical change of schemes (“God exists” / “God does not exist”) as a way of survival under conditions of existential vacuum; 3) the metaphysical construction of worlds by E. Swedenborg, where scientific thinking and spiritual “visions” intertwine in a hybrid process of constructing a new reality. Of special interest is the comparison of Swedenborg’s creativity and Kant’s, as well as drawing parallels with the work of neural networks. The author concludes that creativity is reducible neither to the pure spontaneity of “Nothingness” (S. Neretina) nor to the compilation of data. Creativity is interpreted as a complex hybrid process, where unconscious activity (realization of blocked programs, hallucinations, daydreams) supplies the “raw material”—images and visions—and consciousness (intellect, logic, cultural norms) performs the function of correction and schematization, turning this material into universally valid knowledge or a work. The article actually substantiates the assumption that the innovation of AI is structurally similar to human creativity. A neural network operates with hidden connections (“weights”), learning on enormous datasets (which can be correlated with unconscious natural processes and conscious activity), but it is deprived of the existential experience of problematic situations, which fundamentally distinguishes machine generation from the anthropological creative act.

Keywords

natural, unconscious, artificial, activity, program, problem, resolution, creativity, correction, dreams