Transrational language: a temporary ecstasy, more private than public. Can be returned to sporadically for intense sensation, like ice cream. Best used “in the mix” for contrast, i.e. as dessert (although not necessarily in a linear sense).
Glossolalia: the showy display of murky privacy.
Cherish the zaumishness of garbage-y cyber-detritus. Don’t knock it — use it, milk it.
Fear of the transrational in poetry is akin to a fear of sex (fear of milkiness?).
Animal language is probably not transrational, although it appears to be, to us.
We can keep the transrational interesting not just by contrast — also by degrees and permutations.
Is the transrational a mutation of the rational? Trun hoova blee smur.
Otohime 
Is that why people are afraid of glossalia and ecstatic nontransparent language–because they’re like sex?This is an enticing idea, and seems right somehow–to link two types of prudishness (textually and sexual). But I don’t know why it’s right.People aren’t afraid of sex per se, though–they’re afraid of loss of control during sex. So it gets down to questions of control and management and “letting go”.So, people who don’t like zaum/glossalia don’t like it because they can’t enjoy it and they can’t enjoy it because they can’t trust the author enough to let go around the author’s language.How can we zaumish/glossolalic writers makes ourselves more trustworthy, so people can feel more uninhibited around our work?Hopefully the answer is something less boring than “university presses.”Does this mean that conventional poetry, where the meaning and allusion are most restricted, is actually the porn of literature (based on the analogy: sex is to porn, as experimental poetry is to conventional poetry ((where the hinge of the analogy is the concern with control)))?If Billy Collins is the porn of poetry, that would explain his popularity. But I think he’s not really the porn of poetry. I think analogy may have lead me astray once more. . .