poets

What he finds is that professional poets tend to (among other techniques) use more concrete language than amateur poets.

Supposedly epic poets and druids endured long and incredibly arduous trainings with huge amounts of rote memorisation.

No one will deny that there are charlatans and poets posing as philosophers in the continental tradition.

The best poets (different for each of us) somehow surpass the impossibility of using language to express true humanity, and do it anyway.

Often the poets will have self-published (or small-time-published) chapbooks for a few dollars.

Creatives will make money in other ways; there will always be writers, artists, poets, and hackers.

Plus an incredibly active culture of underground writers and poets.

Or poets that turn every phrase over in their minds.

From him, I learned about other poets and writers of his generation.

So, no, poets (proper ones) haven't, as you say, rejected concrete experience.

All good poets are very well-read in poetry, but there are many good programmers who rarely read code other than what they intend to modify, or as documentation.

I personally believe that programmers can learn from poets, for example.

Eliot's "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal" turning into "Good artists borrow; great artists steal", which is so much catchier.

In it screenwriters struggle for their art while poets are optioning treatments of their poems for "mid six figures".

In "Ranking Contemporary American Poems"[1] Michael Dalvean uses natural language processing and rudimentary machine learning to prise apart the language poets use.

And therefore also Poets have been more reasonable then Philosophers, and Geryon or Cerberus less monstrous than Amphisbæna." How funny is that -- the idea of the Amphisbaena is so wild, how more plausible is having three or four heads at a single end?