Having withdrawn and having been expelled from Eden, man comprehended the inevitability of death and began to perceive „the futility and uselessness“ of his labors „under the Sun“. Outside the walls of Paradise, he began to reflect, to „cognize“, to philosophize or, as M. Montaigne put it, „to learn to die“. Armed with knowledge, man found himself face to face with the problem of the meaning and the aim of existence; cogito turned out, in the long run, to be the symbol of despondency, an index of scepticism, of the end, of a week will, of hopelessness. But despite the full clarity of this initial situation (comprehension of the finite nature of existence and futility of any activity), man, so to say, from the very first minute manifested something that should be called the greatest paradox: the paradox of continuing to live, the paradox of vitality. (Ecclesiastes, that most depressing of all books, a book which, from verse to verse enhances the sense of futility of existence, of unfathomable darkness, — ends in a paradoxical adjuration to go on following, the path of life). Despite the paralyzing content of knowledge (cogito, da'at), man goes on living and creating, obeying something as yet unnamed, and he lives on, i.e. from day to day, nearing the grave with an inexhaustive and unaccountable charge of optimism in his soul. (Schopenhauer, a man who, together with Ecclesiastes and Buddists, keenly felt „the reality“ of the pessimistic impulse, was, as is known, „the most jovial“ of men. What, then, is the motive.force?

Evidently, it is not consciousness. If we may resort to such an obviously conventional term, it is something else, namely, non-consciousness. This force, permeating the whole Universe and, therefore, present in man, constitutes his essential force. Despite cogito, it causes man to create, causes him to forget that of which man is fully aware, that is makes him forget, even at the last moment of his life, that it is really his last moment. Owing to this force, the sense of his non-finitness is unconsciously fortified in man, as well as his sense of being part of a non-finite world, of his link with that which, for Reason, is only „has been“ or „will be“. A sense of not supra-temporality, but of extra-temporality. This sense — a state of being firmly set in the world, is given to man not by argumentation, not by logic, but by something much broader.

The only thing that is known about this „something“ is that it is not consciousness. Any other definition would be unwarranted, as long as we attempt to fit it in any possible rationalistic category. Meanwhile, history can tell us about a number of attempts to comprehend this 'something», i.e., the structure of the sphere of the «non-conscious», attempts made earlier from mystical positions (the divine will), and now — from rationalistic positions (for example, the un-conscious in the school of psychoanalysis). Rationalists (Freud) understood «non-consciousness» as, for instance, an inconceivable experience of stable individual or collective psychic sets: the incest complex, the complex of original sin, etc. The search for rationalistic strata in the sphere of the «non-conscious» attempts to schematize something which, as a whole, does not lent itself to schematization, — all this is not, maybe, entirely groundless; however, the line of «non-consciousness» cannot be reduced to this. The presence of rationalistically explicable elements is explained and conditioned here by the fact that the illuminated portion of the «venue» begins and continues in the «blacked-out» portion, or, to put it more exactly, in the portion invisible to the eye. It is just these zones of junction, of transition, border zones that are, as a rule, investigated by researchers into the unconscious. And they investigate just what reason may investigate: the structure of consciousness and its zones bordering on the non-conscious. Investigation of the rules and mechanisms of transition of one into the other, etc.

However, the problem, as we interpret it, does not permit us to quite stop at this and requires further discussion.

So, in the process of life-creation man «obtains» a sense of non-finiteness, an insuperable sense of optimism: in the process of creation, he equalizes his consciousness with his existence; this is where the so-called balancing set of consciousness steps in. This process of reciprocal equalization of the mind and life is, first of all, unconscious, natural, automatic. The second and the principal facet of the truth is that in the same process man comes back to the status he has lost forever, to the initial situation which was described in the biblical Eden scene. In other words, man «regains» the slate of harmonious unity with the world and overcomes the situation of homo-centrism, so detrimental to him. Man reintegrates himself. The radical essential aim of this fundamentally never-completed process is — too achieve happiness.

Thus, creativity is a return to that past «in Eden» which, unconsciously and covertly, lives on in the memory of mankind. We should add here that this past «in Eden» does not at all require recognition as a real historical fact; it is only known that it is «realized» at the level of an image translated into the pact from the future, into reality from a dream. That is why we determine the act of present-day man achieving «an Eden» status as a comeback, while creativity is regarded by us as the means of man's achieving this status.

At the same time, creativity means creation: not only a means of comeback as we understand it, but also actual creation, creation of everything that is termed progress, movement forward, everything that puts more space between humanity and the «pre-human border». In this lies the dialectical nature of creativity — to lead forward and, simultaneously, to bring back, to return. This is why we cannot but conclude that the comeback is achieved, in this case, by moving forward, in the form of inevitably moving away from the initial point, from any point on which our gaze is fixed now; that is why it is always a comeback to a new place, or, to put it more acceptably, to a new coil; we mean not only a new coil in the history of society as such, as a whole, but also a new coil in the «history» of an individual, a concrete personality.

The question arises here: if true progress (different from its contemporary partial, i.e. illusory representation) — is a forward movement that brings man bask to Eden, — where and how should he proceed in order to be adequately reintegrated? This is, actually, an age-old socio-political question, a quest for an answer to which has led and still leads men to generate a variety of philosophical-political and politico-economic theories. Although this question is, obviously, of prime importance, we focus our attention on the essentially human, ontological aspect of the problem stated in the title, comprehending fully — as will be seen lower down — its indiseverable bond with the above.

But now let us consider another question: why is it that creativity returns men into the «milieu» of harmonious unity with the world, the unity of Adam not only with the tree, but also with the Serpent, the unity of Adam and Eve, a return into a «pre-disintegrated» milieu. An answer to this question is prompted by art, the most full-blooded form of creativity.