CYCLE THREE

1. The philosopher is a creature of space and the poet ... a creature of time - the former divine and the latter diabolic.

2. The writer (novelist) is a creature of volume and the playwright (dramatist) a creature of mass - the former purgatorial and the latter mundane, which is to say, of the World.

3. Philosophical space can be spatial or spaced, aphoristic or maxistic. Poetical time can be sequential or repetitive, rhymed or metered.

4. Literary volume can be volumetric or voluminous, essayistic or novelistic. Dramatic mass can be massed or massive, tragic or comic.

5. Although the philosopher is effectively a god and the poet a devil, both are alike noumenal - the former subjectively so and the latter such in objective terms.

6. Although the writer is effectively a purgatorial figure (man) and the playwright a worldly one (woman), both are alike phenomenal - the former objectively so and the latter such in subjective terms.

7. In the 'Kingdom of Hell' the poet is king, whereas in the 'Kingdom of Heaven' only the philosopher can reign.

8. In the 'purgatorial realm' the writer is king, whereas in the 'mundane realm' only the playwright/actor can reign.

9. The spirit of the thinker (philosopher) is no less superior - as noumenal over phenomenal - to the will of the speaker (playwright/actor) ... than the soul of the reader (poet) is superior - as noumenal over phenomenal - to the intellect of the writer (novelist).

10. To think ... is the opposite, as noumenal subjectivity vis-à-vis noumenal objectivity, of to read. To speak ... is the opposite, as phenomenal subjectivity vis-à-vis phenomenal objectivity, of to write.

11. To think ... is to be space, whereas to read ... is to do time. To speak ... is to give mass, whereas to write ... is to take volume.

12. The thinker, a philosopher, is a spiritualist, whereas the reader, a poet, is an emotionalist. The speaker, an actor, is a sensualist, whereas the writer, a novelist, is an intellectualist.

13. To read beyond the outer light of poetry to the inner light of fiction, or vice versa. To speak beyond the outer spirit of drama to the inner spirit of philosophy, or vice versa.

14. Reading and writing, being objective, are alike perceptual contexts. Speaking and thinking, by contrast, are alike conceptual because subjective. We perceive what we read or write. We conceive what we speak or think. One can no more perceive speaking or thinking than ... conceive reading or writing.

15. If God is a thinker and the Devil a reader, then man is a writer and woman a speaker. When writing is eclipsed by reading, or fiction by poetry, then the Devil is king and man ... simply damned. When speaking is transcended by thinking, or drama by philosophy, then God is king and woman ... simply saved. For the writer can only be damned by reading, whereas the speaker can only be saved by thinking. A society with a great many poets but few if any writers, or novelists, is diabolical. A society, by contrast, with a great many philosophers but few if any playwrights ... is divine.