Did he clarify this relationship between two modes of poetizing, or did he only contradict himself? He wants to say both that language rules and leads, and also, that other poetizing is originative in its own way. He wants to have it both ways, we might say. Or, we can say that he rejects what is easy to say in old notions, and rejects the seeming linguistic determinism of the first phrases as well as the seeming non-linguistic meanings of the later phrases. If that makes sense it is a new sense.