This kind of method will mostly get rubbished around here, but it has its roots in something valid. I know of some poets who regard the process along the lines of the Taoist notion of weu-wei -- i.e. the action is naturalized instead of linked to artifice. But in order for this to work you still have to fill your head with valuable material: you need a distinct style to work with, a decent knowledge of tropes and some lit history. You need to know 'how it's done' in order to splurge something worthwhile. In fact, more poets write like this than they might admit or simply might recognise. Most who swear by the approach, however, do go back and edit the results quite extensively.

--
mimesis, the poetry journal

Buy Mimesis issue one here.
Buy Mimesis issue two here.

ITYM wu-wei.

Parenthetically: the Neo-Taoists (c:a 3rd century CE) contrasted the concept of wu-wei (which they interpreted as "natural action") with yu-wei ("unnatural action"). They thought Confucius was a greater writer than Lao-tzu or Chuang-tzu precisely because he focussed on yu-wei; because wu-wei is ineffable and by nature impossible to speak about, they thought it was wiser to focus on explaining and teaching yu-wei.

--
I would love to see this town in the autumn. I think Crabbeville in autumn would look quite magnificent. I would have made tiny little leaves — oak, poplar, maple, chestnut — and spread them across the town of Crabbeville. Magnificent.

Sure, typo.

And sure, most people probably think both concepts are junk.

--
mimesis, the poetry journal

Buy Mimesis issue one here.
Buy Mimesis issue two here.

I think it comes down to something like this: when you start learning something, you need a very structured learning plan. because you don't know anything yet. but as you apply the structure, over time you will get better at it and it will come more naturally.
this is what I strive for in poetry- that I will become so proficient with rhyme (and metre and metaphor and the rest) that I write awesome stuff from the get-go.
unfortunately, the real world seldom works like that. If you're only writing for yourself, then your aproach is probably fine. but if you want to become a better artist, it's a no-go zone.
most people on DAjust pen it down and post it(or at least, I really hope so, because otherwise all that rubbish were the edited versions. scary stuff). I believe that it should be illegal to expose relatively innocent people to some of the 'oetry' committed here.
anyway.
Enjoy.

--
Never take your dog's admiration as conclusive evidence that you are wonderful.

I like the point `PoeticWar made.

There are Surrealist poets, like Desnos, Breton, and Peret, who really focused on automatic writing as a methodology (which is in line w/what you're doing), but I'm pretty certain they went back into the poems and refined bits and pieces, corrected grammar, spelling, etc. They simply function too well to be brain spew. Also, taking into account the context of that time, they were probably better schooled in classic literature (possibly even Greek/Roman) and learned some proficiency with traditional modes prior to tackling the avant-garde stuff.

--
my life in movies: [link]

That's only fair; I think most people are junk. (Ba-dum tsh)

--
I would love to see this town in the autumn. I think Crabbeville in autumn would look quite magnificent. I would have made tiny little leaves — oak, poplar, maple, chestnut — and spread them across the town of Crabbeville. Magnificent.

Reminds me of Jack Kerouac who greatly utilized the not-editing-a-single-word approach. However, it's usually a good idea to have a firm understanding of the mechanics of poetry... well, at least if you're not writing for just yourself.

I think most poem-writers on dA don't utilize extensive editing. It's hard for me to view most of the poems on dA as "finished works." They're more like brainstorms of ideas and emotions on screen. Conclusively, I think many of the writers here on dA do share your philosophy, but haven't really given it much thought.

--
Read This Magazine - [link]

Writing is most definitely a very emotional thing for a lot of people. Just because you go back and edit your work doesn't mean that you feel less strongly or more mechanically about your work. It simply means that you want the poem to express how you feel and what you want to say in the best possible way, and it doesn't ever come out perfectly the first time.

I don't think the way you write changes or is different from the way others write (excepting obvious differences for the personal process). You're talking about the way you revise/edit I gather. Some people write and never look at it again and some people write and never stop looking at it. I'd guess most writers are in between with that. So you approach poetry as an emotional outlet and others approach poetry as a career or way to deeper meaning or whatever poets write for these days.

What I see is this...when you, yourself, are writing poetry, you can never get that one emotional moment back. You cannot stand in that moment again and relive it and try to write from exactly that same feeling and spot. But you know when you are very angry and you are trying to get a point across and everything comes out truthful but jumbled? You know what you want to say and you express yourself and yet the person on the other end has no clue what you really mean. That's what happens with emotional poetry. You get it out, get rid of the feeling, live in the moment - but if you are writing for an audience and not for you, sometimes the emotion is so overwhelming etc. in that one moment that you did not get it across to your reader as well as you could have. If you are writing for yourself it's no big thing b/c you are the audience and you'll always know what you meant. If you're writing for others, being willing to go back and try to recreate or recapture the moment in a way that is true to what you are feeling but still gets your point across is probably a better bet.

All I see in your post is this...you are still at the point where you are writing primarily for yourself whereas some of the other people around here have started writing for themselves and others. That doesn't make you different, just puts you at a different point in the process.

-waves hand- I do.

Poetry is an expression of art, expression that comes to one in a flash that we write it down and feel proud of ourselves. But we do only write for ourselves, and sometimes we feel "hey, that line looks better over there" or "this word doesn't express everything". But I leave my first drafts as they are, and if I feel compelled to change anything I normally rewrite the whole piece, because each is different, each just "is" and no amount of editing can ever take that away. No moment can ever excite the exact emotion that a piece puts across a second time.

--
"If you hear a twig snap, don't whistle."