also reading Anglo-Saxon riddles from the Exeter Book (translated). I'm in "start over" mode.
random gurglings re "poetry, theories of":
It's like other semiotic systems (both art & non-art), ie., it organizes experience, reality as we know it, into "meaning-packets". We make gestures, signs at things, put them into relations with other things. A natural, practical (survival) activity.
So this is mimetic.
But it is also autotelic, in the sense of playful and beautiful-in-itself. In this sense it has no exoteric function, it's simultaneously creative & self-fulfilled, a miniature pleroma. In this way it's "objective" (in the sense noted in previous post).
But here I would add that, if so, it is, paradoxically, also mimetic or realist (if, and perhaps only if, the cosmos as a whole is also, in some fashion, a creation). So the autotelic possibly fuses or harmonizes with the mimetic.
& then it is expressive in the sense that words are not merely semiotic, but affective as well : they stimulate emotions and memory. & emotions and memory, in turn, create intellectual ripples and waves: desire motivates plot, desire spurs exploration.
& then of course it is pragmatic in the Horatian sense, in that everyone longs for both intellectual clarity - the semiotic syntheses of experience - and affective, emotional pathos - the felt expression of the feelings (which cannot easily be distinguished from perceptions). And since everyone longs for these things, we have a captive audience which includes the human race, as well as bluejays and other such mimics.