Still grappling with this week's readings??

I want to start off by saying that although really interesting, this week's readings seemed complex to understand. I am still not sure of certain aspects of what he says.  Diderot questions: "must the actor experience what he portrays, or is his acting a higher form of “aping,” an imitation of an ideal prototype?" It was also mentioned that theatrical performances could be a lesson that the actor learns by heart in advance.  And to answer this question, Vygotsky proposes that we also need to look at the whole rather than only looking within the actor. "The psychology of the actor is a historical and class category, not a biological category". I can understand this because I have watched and seen interviews with actors and they say that they spend hours and hours discussing and trying to understand the context of the play, background and development of the character. However, I still think that each actor brings uniqueness as well. This is because no two actors given the same role will perform it in the same way. So there is an internal psychological aspect/personality as well that shows up right?

I am also wondering that actors may have practiced exactly what needs to be happen at what minute but there may be moments (even if for a few seconds), that I feel like they may not be aware of reality and be totally consumed by the play and the emotions? As an audience, I sometimes cry when I watch performances, so at least for those few moments I am truly feeling those emotions right? So I am not sure how is it possible to be totally involved but detached at the same time. I am also reflecting not only on actors as creative artists, but what about play writers? Do you think they would be experiencing their characters and their emotions?