The MIND wins!
Ever heard of having a message go straight to the heart? That can be dangerous; there is no evaluation of the information and emotions rule! What about the proverbial change of heart? Not only politicians, but writers of poetry, email, etcetera often rue the fact they were spontaneous and unthinking. I conclude, therefore, that poetry from the heart is less solid, more changeable, and inferior to poetry emanating from the mind.
I was reluctant to choose sides, because oftentimes we do not have choices in life, but a combination of options where one item is something of a priority. For me, poetry shaped by the mind is more important than the gush and flow from people's hearts! Some spontaneous writing is nothing but excreta from the heart.
What comes from the heart is emotional responses and influenced by knee-jerk reactions. These responses are valid in themselves... but would you consider your talks with a therapist "poetry"? Such "words from the heart" and spontaneous writings are only a beginning. Yes, poetry that has emotional aspects do appeal to many people, but I daresay that poetry from the mind lives on forever. I am not advocating removing all the "heart" from poetry; rather, the heart must play second fiddle to what the mind reshapes after applying itself to the topic. My view is validated even by debators from the other side in this discussion. How, you ask? Think BIBLE, think SHAKESPEARE.
If you accept that the Bible is a rational, logic-based document (the "logos") that man, inspired by God, has passed down for 2,000 years, you cannot say it is based on the heart, and emotions. I will not detour here to talk of at least three kinds of love, and the heart is at the level of EROS (carnality) not Agape (Loving Creativity). Similarly, Shakespeare's plays, especially the comedies like "THE TEMPEST" and "A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM" do not succeed because they appeal primarily to the heart. The comedy succeeds because of Shakespeare's mind. Shakespeare's HISTORIES (history plays) make the point better: while not focusing on love affairs and matters of the heart in these plays, the bard's mind and how he used language wins where there is no romance or weddings and happy endings.
How do I experience my poetry writing? I am prouder of the poems I wrote and continue to write that are improved by interventions and editing by my mind. In other words, should you and I allow our writing to flow from the heart alone, we will see nothing less than a cyclone of emotions on page and print. Let me illustrate: if I do not like the leader of Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe, and I write what is in my heart, I may write somehting as follows:
MUGABE
black man, steals white farmlands
tyrant, Hitler, tinpot dictator
how he insults our journalists
kills his own, every opponent
takes Africa down, and African leaders cheer
or fear to speak truth to power
perhaps but for Mandela, in London,
who murmured something about
failure of leadership in Zimbabwe
and in South Africa.
Some may be happy to label my writing about ("MUGABE") as poetry. However, I daresay no poetry magazine will publish this effort as good poetry! Why? It has none of the enduring qualities of poetry that are made long-lasting by mental refinement. Furthermore, many of the basic assertions are WRONG in my poem, above. South Africans killed more immigrants and destroyed more property in two weeks during May 2008, than did Mugabe and his government to his opponents for the same period of time. Granted, that Zimbabwe has been in worse conditions if we consider a longer period of time... but at the time former president Nelson Mandela spoke out against Zimbabwe's leaders (without naming any single leader), South Africa was reeling from fiery, horrible black-on-black violence that killed Africans including Somalis, and a few Indian immigrants too. Is there not a failure of leadership in South Africa too? Thousands of blacks were killed by blacks in the run-up to the historic elections in South Africa in 1993. Other factors influence our hearts to respond to [people, places, things and faces. Not all that comes from human hearts is worthy of celebration and elevation.
My point is simply that if we write as we feel when we feel it, or our hearts dictate, we will produce only the germ of poetry. The refinement of mind - and in many cases atheists and communists write great poetry influenced by their intellect alone - allows what we feel to be polished, cleaned and improved into good and great poetry. Without the contribution of the mind - the human's unique contribution - we will be lions, tigers and lambs communicating our feelings and instincts.
Let me improve the poetry-work-in-progress, MUGABE, as I began it above. My mind brings to the task all my education, emotional maturity rather than emotional diarrheoa, and careful use of language, meter and rhyme. Note that "rhyme" and meter do not flow naturally from the heart but these elements have to be cultivated in the mind (through classes, education, or reading and listening to others). If whatever we felt or thought were sold as poetry, - which may be the preference of proponents of free verse - we would do worse than letters to the editor in local newspapers. Even the better free verse writers will not accept unpolished work as poetry. Let me try to render my poem more acceptable by touching on universals:
MUGABE
once an inspirer of good men, women
and all who wished the best for Africa,
Mugabe of Zimbabwe has grown old...
his mind, become cold, cannot decipher
right, wrong, for hiding in a weak stronghold
why, O why, does a continent get sold
by weak men, mighty armies, new and old?
I have just proved, in the space of about 30 minutes, with a cultivated mind (and the Bible also says a thinking mind is needed to execute its lessons well) that the writing that flows from the heart is inferior, and possibly of less all-round value, than poetry that is shaped by the mind and mental faculties. The mind combines heart, head, expericne and hope much better when it comes to writing poetry.