PM> Yes, agreed, and for the most part not so well contended with. "the
PM> meaning" of a poem is not like the meaning of a word you look up in the
PM> dictionary. Or it is the same thing, i.e. like what a word is besides what
PM> it is in a dictionary ("Dictionaries drive words out of their senses" etc.)
PM> I don't think there is a finish line for getting a poem (i.e. there is not
PM> the kind of "after" that your question implies) or a poet's meaning, but
PM> that there is "the meaning" or "the way to read the poem" must be so. There
PM> is no way to prove that, but it may be fair to point out that asking for
PM> proof is an indicator of being on the wrong track. Poems are not laboratory
PM> science.
Poetry is magic science. Which has a rule: "all time is unredeemable",
and that's the only rule.

I would make such comparison (what would we be, if we'd shun 'popular'
culture):
There is physical truth in Fight Club and there is spiritual one in
Matrix. First is about what we know we feel, second about what we
really feel we feel. Both films, however, are not art, but propaganda,
since both of them only _sell_ _half of the truth_. That's what all
the fuzz about 'objective correlative' about.

Nikolay