wow

this is a VERY layered description of poetry as the "(translated) untranslated voice." so my reaction is very layered, too....

my first reaction to your claim that "poetry conveys a more raw experience than prose" was a decided "no" (imagine me now heading out the door of our classroom...), because i think of poetry as being far "more distilled" than prose. in my experience, students generally don't like it as much, because there's too much "blank space" on the page, and so too much work involved in "making sense" of a poem, in "putting sense back into it." many of my science colleagues don't like it, either, for this reason: "why can't poets just say clearly and directly what they mean, instead of gesturing so vaguely towards it...?" prose is preferred by many because it's more directive, because it "explains itself" more fully.

and yet, and yet (as i read on through your post....now imagine me moving towards the blackboard) i could sorta see your point: that poetry, however distilled, attempts to convey "emotions" more directly than does prose, which is a record of "motions." and so, while poetry may be more "translated," and so harder to interpret, it's also more evocative, more open to interpretation...

and/but (and now, I guess, imagine me moving to the middle of the room...) I wouldn't call any of this "raw." i don't think experience comes before language, before what we learn to experience; i think experience is mediated through language, and that we should very much beware valorizing the authority of experience as prior to, more real ("more raw"!) than interpretation.

there are a couple of great feminist essays on this: see Joan W. Scott, "The Evidence of Experience"; Chandra Talpade Mohanty "Feminist Encounters: Locating the Politics of Experience"; and/or  Linda Kauffman's "The Long Goodbye: Against Personal Testimony, or An Infant Grifter Grows Up."