Let us begin by saying that the natural world (L. nasci, “to be born”) is the world into which we are born, earth as it would exist if humans had never occupied it, or the universe as it can be verified by the senses; whereas the supernatural world (L. super, “above” + nasci) is the whole of existence.

On the one hand, physics (Gk. φύσις, phusis, “nature”) is the study of the natural world aimed at understanding how material objects relate to one another, and the laws of physics (OE lagu, “"something laid down or fixed”) explain what happens in the natural world. On the other hand, metaphysics (Gk. μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, meta ta phusica, “after the natural things”) explains how and why things happen, and the theories of metaphysics (θέα, thea, “a view” + ὁρᾶν, horan, "to see") explain what happens in the supernatural world.

Let us also say that an artificial world (L. ars “art” + facere "to do") is any representation – either argumentative or literary – of events that could conceivably occur in either the natural or the supernatural world.

In the study of drama, a stage-reality (L. stare, “to stand” + res, “things”) is the laws of physics as well as the metaphysical theory that explains the events that occur in the artificial world of a play.

To determine the stage-reality that governs a play, we treat the stage as if it were its own little world, with its own laws of physics that may or may not be that same as the laws of physics that govern the natural world. To determine the laws of physics that govern a play, we read or watch it sequentially, after each scene asking: Have I ever seen, outside the theatre, with my own eyes, what just happened here on stage? What metaphysical theory about the supernatural world explains the laws of physics that we have just seen in this artificial world? If we saw outside of the artificial theatre what we just saw here inside the theatre, what would we then have to believe about the way the world works?

If, outside of the theatre, we have seen what occurs here in the artificial world of the theatre, then we suspect that we are dealing with a natural stage, which operates according to the same laws of physics that govern the natural world.

If, outside of the theatre, we have never seen what occurs here, and we could not imagine seeing it, then in all likelihood we are dealing with a supernatural stage, which operates according to a theory of metaphysics that can be hypothesized but never demonstrated.

The stage-reality describes a formal feature of the drama, but it says nothing whatsoever about the author’s intent for representing an artificial world in that way. The supernatural elements in a play can either be mimetic or rhetorical. If they are mimetic (μιμεîσθαι, mimeisthai, “to imitate”), they are imitations of either the natural or supernatural world. If they are rhetorical (ἐρῶ, ero, “to speak, say”), they are figurative analogies used as a pleasurable means to instruct an audience how to live in the natural world. For a consideration of the author’s intent, we ask two questions – the question of context, and the question of narrative mode.

In light of his or her historical context (L. com, “together” + textere, “to weave”), a dramatist represents a given stage-reality as the actual world, the apparent world, or the ideal world.

An actual world (L. agere, “to do”) is the world as it really is.

The apparent world (L. ad “toward” + perere, “to come forth, be visible”) is the world as it seems to be.

The ideal world (ἰδέα, idea, “notion, pattern”) is the world as it ought to be.

To determine the historical context of a stage-reality, we ask the question, “According to whom?”

If the dramatist represents the actual world, he writes as a philosopher, one who makes a metaphysical claim about how the world works, using the pleasurable medium of the theatre to do so. In the historical context of the play, according to whom is this artificial world the actual world?

If the dramatist represents the apparent world, then the dramatist is a historian, who may or may not believe that the way people see the world reflects the way the world actually is. In the historical context of the play, according to whom does the natural world appear as this artificial world?

If the dramatist represents the ideal world, then the dramatist is a psychologist, investigating where human desire comes from and how the world as it really is does not satisfy us. In the historical context of the play, according to whom is this artificial world an ideal world?

The dramatist might present the stage-reality of the natural world as the actual world, as the apparent world, or as the ideal world. Likewise, the dramatist might present the stage-reality of the supernatural world as the actual world, as the apparent world, or as the ideal world.

Once we’ve established the stage-reality in play, and its historical context, the next question to ask is about the narrative mode in which the author has represented that stage-reality. The dramatic mode can either be didactic or ironic. If the dramatic mode is didactic, then the author represents that stage-reality as an attempt to convince the audience of its truth. If the dramatic mode is ironic, then the author presents a critique of those who think the world works as it does on this stage.

If the dramatist presents the supernatural world didactically, then the dramatist is a theologian constructing a mimetic stage-reality to evangelize his or her theory of metaphysics.

If the dramatist presents the supernatural world ironically, then the dramatist is a skeptic constructing a rhetorical stage-reality to show the insufficiency of a given theory of metaphysics.

If the dramatist presents the natural world didactically, then the dramatist is a rationalist constructing a mimetic stage-reality to explore human social interaction.

If the dramatist presents the natural world ironically, then the dramatist is a satirist constructing a rhetorical stage-reality to mock the folly of a fallen society.

In sum, a dramatist might didactically present an artificial world – be it natural or supernatural – as the actual world, the apparent world, or the ideal world, which would mean that the dramatist wants his or her audience to adopt this stage-reality as a metaphysical theory, a historical fact, or a political position. Or a dramatist might ironically present an artificial world – be it natural or supernatural – as the actual world, the apparent world, or the ideal world, which would mean that the dramatist presents a critique of those who adopt this stage-reality as a metaphysical theory a historical fact, or a political position.