[W T Clark]

Originally Posted by Yves S L

Cameron, do you have synethesia? If not, then the meaning of "red" would have to be derived from association of red things (how do you think meaning is derived?), and if the red thing is not wine, then, at that point, the reader is making up their own poetry. I doubt there are many folk (Helen Keller) that can do the real time calculations to actually cross-relate senses (this can be tested): which of the infinite shades of red are we talking about? Do people interpret synethesia as some kind of heightened sensory perception, heightened cognition, something desirable and advanced? Are there not better way to use your senses? Heck, is it even the best way to associate between different senses?

Yves: yes.
It's not an intellectual mannerism. It is a physical experience.
Red: colour-wise: scarlet, a sickly-bright absence. But that is too many syllables.
As to poetry: as you have already demonstrated, there are interpretations outside of synethesiia, and inside: the poem delivers the reader extremely direct poetry, and therefore, there may be allowed moments where they can make their own. Still, that is not a great problem anyhow, if you object, as the description is not to provide its own non-synethesic interpretation. If the poem leads to the reader confusing ("deranging") their senses: I have no real complaints.