A good review, Ill ponder it, re read it, and assimilate as I am able
For the moment I'm not sure I have the sensitivity and fixed situational awareness to bake it in, but there is something to it and I have to internalize.... For example while I agree that rocks have in and of themselves no sense of futility, can they not personify it? Their deadness is an infusion of futility and are a constant message of death to the living. Moons too are rocks and may smash into one another ie. kamikaze and I guess I simply didn't see them as topical. My experience doesnt support this, Why does it support yours, Am I missing something? An after thought to your point in a way, kamikaze implies aggression and so does suicide, both intentionally self destructive but planets are blind forces, more like "smashing thunderous immolations".... changed to "fluctious immolating moons"
I published an intellectual history of poetry here. Does history, which I view as a continuum of thesis and anti thesis, action and reaction present a certain complexity to effective critique. It seems a criticism is contextual as it relates to the variations of intent and use of language. Would one critique intellectualism, an approach that is essentially cerebral say juxtaposed to the disjuncture of symbolist poetry in the same way You indicated that you don't think its enough to fulfill ones logic through a piece as per your view that music, sound, image, rhyme, remain an essential necessity to make a poem ie a rational train of thought no matter how elegant in poetic form and innovative is still not a poem?
Perhaps one might think of it as a poetic un-poem ;)

I've also read poetry where meaning gets down right abstruse. Artful ambiguity is appreciated among some focusing in on asymmetries textures and sounds or the way words look on a page as in experimentalist visual poems.
Andy Warhol was fond of saying "If you understand it it's not art"

I very much appreciate your comments I hope you don't mind mine :)
Many Thanks Z