You use words to express maximum theocratic meaning,
You don't pay too much attention
To grammar or technique. You aren't
An atomist, torn between relativities, but
A bound-electron equivalent
Who favours a conceptual absolutism,
A mind given to essences to a much
Greater extent than to appearances.
Why, you don't even divide
Your poetic thoughts into stanzas, disdaining
The relativity such a procedure would reflect.
You have never consciously rhymed
Line-endings, disdaining the seduction
Of the eye to poetic appearances.
You don't much go on alliteration, onomatopoeia,
Or assonance either, and one would look in vain
For a regular, heart-like metre.
You aren't a practitioner of belle-lettres,
For whom beauty, and hence aesthetics, is
Of consummate importance.
You know that, taken to extremes, beauty and truth
Are mutually exclusive, and that you
Can't get to the poetic truth of theocratic essence
By deferring to literary beauty.
Not that your poems are ugly!
Ugliness precedes beauty and is, in any case,
Incompatible with truth.
Your poems must be judged
On their own poetic terms, as expressions of
The highest theocratic truth.
Expressions, yes, but not impressions!
For you always approach truth
From a sort of anti-philosophical angle,
Not as a free-electron equivalent in pure spirituality.
You prefer to intimate of the Divine Omega
Indirectly rather than directly ... through
A contemplation-inducing impressive style.
Your metaphysical poetry is generally
In the freest free-verse style, yet it is still
Bound to appearances, and so
It must remain while you continue to preach.
It's just possible that you will evolve
To a still freer style in due course, the verse
More columnar, and hence transcendent, than ever before.
But will you abandon expression, turning
To abstract impression in a superpoetical salvation?