I do think we agree on more than it appeared to me at first sight.

I am not arguing that there are basic concepts that have not been codified, but I am arguing that some concepts are more easier encountered via experimental writing (anaphora, hell iambic meter, for instance) and "discovery" for oneself than via studying text and then careful application. Sometimes it's easier to take a ride in the cart before trying to learn how to hitch the horse to it. What I mean is that while it may appear to be approaching things from the back end, experimental writing allows a writer to explore what feels "good" or "natural" to them without the bother or fuss of terms, "proper vs improper usage," etc. Instead of approaching writing or poetry from a mechanical angle (i.e., "Here is my tool. I know what it is called, how it is made, and how it should be used. Now let me apply my tool") I advocate for experimentation ("I need to move a rock. How should I do that? I could push it" tries pushing "Rock doesn't move much. What else can I use?" spies a stick "What if I put one end of the stick under the rock and pushed?" attempts; success The man doesn't know he's just used a lever to reach his goal but he's reached his goal and discovered something in the process. He doesn't know what a lever is. But he will probably try to repeat this method to various successes and failures until he learns how the lever works even though he doesn't know the physics behind it).

I agree we shouldn't cower from dissection and analysis, but I certainly believe the use of these tools had its pitfalls that one typically encounters and it helps to be aware of.