I would argue that there’s no such thing as creativity as such, i.e., essentially, because inquiry into creativity (a lively area of psychological research) requires creativity that eventually becomes conceptual comprehensibility prospecting itself, which may evolve the conception of comprehension (or comprehensibility) through the reflective prospecting. (That may be why the linked resource above is the third anthology of four by Sternberg in 30 years.)

For example, a sense of “hierarchies of creative domains” (ch. 12 of another anthology of research) evinces curiosity about the hierarchy as such. Is it heuristic? model-theoretical for empirical research? an excursion in conceptual prospecting? Is there an evolutionarity of conceivability implied by creative potential in conceptual prospecting? Is understanding of evolutionarity a kind of creative prospecting of creativity as such?

In any case, conceptions of creativity are about dynamics that often conceal the relations of interest and engagement which are phenomenogenically interfacial (which I’ve troped as mirrorplay), still an obscure notion (i.e., phenomenogeny); but that adequately (I hope) demonstrates that issues of conceptual relativity belong to prospecting creativity itself.

Integral to interpersonal interaction is its potential to mirrorplay phenomenal receptiveness (openness) and responsiveness (aptness) both ways. The biway interfaciality is thus a liminality of interplay that is wholly theirs, interfacing of being with, phenomenal s/p-differentiability of oneself through-and-with each other.

Such a dynamic, which is integral to a therapeutic alliance (one-sided by the therapist’s self withholding), may—in mutual openness—have vast potential for creative discovery, even with mute texts (or other things) given personified ways to “speak for themselves,” granted phenomenogenic self-efficacy.

Both actors (in a twofold—the prototype—which might be manifold, e.g., fourfolding) are:

• en-framing: perception/reception of inter-phenomenal relations; and
• en-stancing: self in inter-phenomenal relations

...such that the framing/stancing dynamic itself transcends the interaction: mirrorplaying stances and frames through s/p-differentiable interaction. Such trans-liminal (inter-being) liminality (inter-being) may elude categoriality, there being a self-defining dynamic, a singularity, sui generis, originative. The above characterization exemplifies that, if nothing else (i.e., seeming idiosyncratically not about creativity in any general sense?).

Anyway, creativity depends on preceding insight. Insight is a centripetal dynamic (gaining gravity). Creativity is a centrifugal dynamic (gaining fruitfulness—radiance, of a sort). The great archetropy of breathing is echoed, analogously: internalization (inquiry, working toward creative effiacy), externalization (communicable formulation). The twofold dynamic can be “like” a radiance of gravity, enthralled in-spiration that works its way into shareable tangibility, e.g., music, dance, or any mode of intelligibility—concerting constellation, dance of narrative. Poiesis finds its logos, which gains shareable cogency for an ethos. Maybe.

Ultimately, imaginability and conceivability derive each other, mysteriously.