Sixth:
Your assertion—“The word that a human being begets from his intellect is written on the parchment, so it is, in its entirety, truly on the parchment without ever leaving the intellect that begot it,” and again, “The word is wholly in the intellect that produced it and wholly in the parchment with which it has fused”—is open defiance, its falsity manifest to sound reason.

Speech that exists in the heart and on the tongue is not identical to its existence when written on parchment. What resides in the speaker’s heart are meanings—petition, statement, knowledge, and intention—whereas what subsists independently are composite letters that are segmented sounds, or the limits of segmented sounds. In neither the human heart nor his mouth is there ink like the ink on parchment.

It is common knowledge among rational people that speech is written on parchment, yet they also know that the parchment contains no knowledge, petition, or report standing within it as these stand in the speaker’s heart, nor does it house composite segmented sounds or letters like the sounds that reside in the speaker’s mouth. Rather, when the word “letter” is applied to the written form, it refers either to the shaped ink itself or to the form and outline of that ink; and when it is applied to the spoken form, it refers either to the segmented sound or to the boundary, point of segmentation, and configuration of that sound.

Every rational person distinguishes, by sense and intellect, between the audible sound issuing from the speaker and the ink seen by the eye. No sane person says that this is that, nor does anyone claim that these two are identical to the meaning lodged in the speaker’s heart. How, then, can you say that the word is entirely in the parchment, entirely in the intellect that generated it, and entirely in itself?