‘Evolve’ was first used in a transitive (enacting) sense, long before We evolved the meaning to be about progressivity.

We make progress; it doesn’t happen without protracted engagement across lives (high individuation contributing to...), domains (important contributions to...), next generations (lasting influence), and sustaining such a cycle.

Of course, we can understand anything as a mere happening (process), which is the common sense of ‘evolution’ and ‘evolving’. But the latter (passive) is derivative of the former (enactive).

It’s all so complex, we need heuristics to make sense of it. The story above is heuristic. But it also tropes essential features of being in Time, as does MC’s conception of creativity (mentioned above at “...real mysteries”), re: actualized talent, domain mastery, and field efficacy.

Beauty of field efficacy: from discursive appropriation to progressive practice

Fundamental Work {a] is usually translated {b] into topically-focused discourse {c] for presentation {d].

The difference between [a] and [c] arises from the tendency of fundamental Work to derive its own conceptuality (terms, shorthands, categorial scaffolds, etc.) for the sake of forming and advancing itself, working more and more comfortably in its own region. The working of the Work is a regioning—selformative, self-developing, evolving—that eventually appropriates itself for appropriate presentation.

That is partly why notions of hermeneutics can become integral to understanding discourse about texts or about work that is to be understood: Translation not only is figurative for mediate interpretation, but also figurative for appropriating Work to topical works.

A high scalarity of Work is likely distant from a useful pedilogy (or curriculum—which any well-formed discursive text is) for clear conveyance relative to a given, time-manageable focus.

The translation which is the forming of a discourse involves authorial dwelling in the [b] <—> [c] difference, for the sake of presentational event (e.g., publication, oral delivery) that is itself an appropriation (c—> d) for an audience (thinking with anticipated others—or actual others as silent listeners).

Actual discussion of a presentation is more-directly appropriative ([d} <—> {e]), at best literally thinking with others as witnessed event.

For the author or presenter, this is a pleasure (we audience presume) of being with “you.” If the presenter says the experience was beautiful, we’re not really surprised: It was a pleasure.

But there’s a potential of beauty here that may only belong to the author presenting an appropriation of his own Work (or textual interpreters dwelling with the difference between authorial Work {b] and received coherence of work across works which constellates a sense of authorship). A common example is the difference between [a} manuscripts and notebooks that precede an array of publications {c], whereby many publications have crystallized a sense of the authorship (“Yeatsian,” “Heideggerian”) which is a literary fiction, to some extent, created by traditions of interpretation.

The authorship is an aggregate character in a theater of the Work that evinces various dramas (texts) which are performed by reading or enacting.

The authorhsip is both with you (through the presentational work {c]) and away (troping a lived difference between [a] and [c]), which may also be newly creative as the presentation (translating further—[c]—> [d]—by performance).

There may be an authorial sense of self withholding (if not self concealing) in the transparency of fully engaging the presentational work.

As I wrote a couple of years ago (vaguely—poetically?), “what’s conveyed may be doubly displaced from the heart of expression because heartful possession shapes its fulfilling conception before necessary translation of that—for there being something to convey—into clear (presumably) presentation, fair presence. The artist channels her possession into insightfulness which is translated for a ‘given’ audience (anticipated or specific)” [Dec. 2016].

Such an aesthetic dynamic—at once an ethicality of genuine conveyance—can be scaled up in terms of large-horizoned domains (e.g., a literary specialty) producing texts aiming for long-range influence for the domain’s field.

Though that usually doesn’t happen with a text, the difference between comprehensive appropriateness (“conceptual inclusive fitness”) and field efficacy—what Hull called “demic efficacy”—is integral to how the works of specialty Work work (effect themselves) for the sake of advancing a field, usually with a range that is intergenerational. We work and teach for the sake of advancing our special field.

So, I add to the above appropriation of Sternberg, MC, and Hull (re: creative individuation and achievment) the third mode of 3-foldness: field efficacy (MC) or “demic” efficacy (Hull).

Isn’t that a little beautiful? Call beauty, always in question: alluring surface of highly intimate, depth of significance?

Truth of creative individuation aspires to achieve a greater goodness in Work that shows itself partially (if not modestly) by an aesthetical ethic that lets it all be rather sublime, eventually, some refined conception of being encycled endlessly in new ways of beginning.