Creativity is the hallmark of human cognition, yet scientific understanding of creative processes is limited. However, there is increasing interest in revealing the neural correlates of human creativity. Though many of these studies, pioneering in nature, help demystification of creativity, but the field is still dominated by popular beliefs in associating creativity with "right brain thinking", "divergent thinking", "altered states" and so on (Dietrich and Kanso, 2010). In this article, we discuss a computational framework for creativity based on Baars' global (...) workspace theory (Baars, 1988) enhanced with mechanisms based on information theory. Next we propose a neurocognitive architecture of creativity with a strong focus on various facets (i.e., unconscious thought theory, mind wandering, spontaneous brain states) of un/pre-conscious brain responses. Our principal argument is that pre-conscious creativity happens prior to conscious creativity happens prior to conscious creativity and the proposed computational model may provide a mechanism by which this transition is managed. This integrative approach, albeit unconventional, will hopefully stimulate future neuroscientific studies of the inscrutable phenomenon of creativity. (shrink)

Five types of psychic duality are distinguished: bipolarity, bimodality, contrariety, dualism, and the coincidentia op–positorurn. Bipolarity is the basic division of the psyche into egoic and nonegoic (physico–dynamic) poles. Bimodality is the division of egoic functioning into active and receptive modes. Contrariety is the division of the nonegoic sphere into opposing sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. Dualism is the organization imposed upon the bipolar structure by primal repression. And the coincidentia opositorum is the condition of psychic integration that would emerge were (...) dualism to be transcended and the bipolar structure (together with the bimodal and contrarietal structures) unified into a higher whole. (shrink)

Conventional categories of creativity are being deconstructed after the so-called postmodern debate. This article takes this process deeper, to what we will show is the hidden subtext of gender underlying how creativity has been socially constructed. It also proposes a more contextualized approach to creativity that takes into account both its individual and social dimensions and how this relates to what Eisler (1987) has called a partnership rather than dominator model of society.