AGAIN THE PROBLEM OF REASON

Sensory reasoning in poetry, for me, always gets the achievement so that the poetry that is written is easier to understand. Sensory reasoning means, testimony to this nature according to the five senses. Someone wrote something like, "I hear the roses are blooming in the morning." If you read it at a glance, there could be no problem. But does it really sound like the rose bloom?

Phrases that are meaningful according to the senses of roses are written, "the skin blooms in the morning."

Based on sensory reasoning, we can disassemble a poem, is it steady, or is it still violating sensory reasoning? Let's take a look at the poem written by Warsono, entitled FOUR FOUR EIGHT EIGHT.

Open the door with the walls of the board
I stepped on the ground floor
I think this is hope
So that life is not too hard

"I opened the clapboard door," would it be called clapboard, or was it made of plank? Doors are doors, and walls are walls. The most appropriate word to describe a door made of boards is 'walled door', but 'door is made of', or simply written 'board door' because there is an 'iron door'. So, Warsono wrote it: I opened the door of the board.

Then on the third line, it is written: I think this is hope

At first glance, the array is also not problematic. However, when viewed with linguistic reasoning, there are irregularities, because the sentence feels ambiguous, namely between statements or questions. If the array is a statement, then it should be written: I think this is hope (not using the particle 'kah' which is meant to ask a question), whereas if the array means a sentence, then it is explained: I ask is this hope?
So for the four arrays above, I try to revise it to be:

Open the board door
I stepped on the ground floor
I think this is hope
So that life is not too hard