Jejudo, South Korea
Uh, I'm not quite sure what to tell you, but this forum in many ways is set up to promote disagreement, and it is frustrating when some one comes in declares TRUTH or, in this case, a one sentence theory of language.
In fact, the easiest way to create problems here is to do exactly that. I don't think I'm the only one around here who has alarm bells go off the moment someone tries to flatly assert a position as undebatable.
In the case of representationalism or in privileging understanding, it's not that they're silly or incorrect ideas but that they are debatable ideas.
In your original post, you mentioned the privileging of the 'how' over the 'what' -- this is something I have much sympathy for but only because I see so many privileging the 'what' over the 'how'. Actually, I consider them to be aspects (and therefore abstractions) of the whole thing (in this case the poem).
Nevertheless, you continue further and argue for ambiguity but without further clarification on the type of ambiguity you're recommending it's hard to see what you're trying to get at. Many people seem to think that this means you should avoid telling the story, or the whole story, that you leave something out. But this presupposes some kind of unmediated access to the story itself, that you can tell the whole story.
I don't think you can.
Further, you seem to be saying that the reader is therefore forced to put something into the poem and this implies that that's not something you do anyway (regardless of how much you put in the story).
That the reader will use his or her own experience to interpret the poem is axiomatic; it's not an option.
The implication is that the poem is still subordinate to the experience rather than an experience in an of itself.
And that's what I want to break.