confusion and philosophy of finding answers

That there might be a good and a bad;
Nietzsche writes, "Was aus Liebe getan wird,
geschieht immer jenseits von Gut und Boese."
What is done out of love--and could that love
be love of poetry?--always takes place beyond good and evil. And could we love poetry,
beyond good and evil / beyond good and bad /
beyond value? And we could love, without
love of value and of criticism,
but value for the presence itself. Philosophy would be
the "teach[er of] how to live"? We would learn to think,
to see our waitress not as the "waitress abstract," but as
the waitress and the woman and the mother that she may be--as
a thinker with us, who stays awake wondering whether her son is safe
and dreaming sweetly, who stares
at ceiling-shadows from streetcar-lights;
thus, philosophy would teach us how we ought to live,
not how we actually do live.

But, beyond good and evil will we ever
know why one judge, one in a slew of scholars criticizes the Polish-Jewish-poet-from-Jersey, or finds him unfullfulling;
and why the rest will lift his words with evangelical enthusiasm?
What patterns of words that fell randomly were really quite precise;
whether they were or weren't, what makes the value and whether
we actually play it so discreetly in competition?
Where the satisfaction for one line, one stanza
will transport a whole poem of the same; and of the negative?
Surely, the adjectives and concrete images help the work--
lest the reader find a string of letters -- minus vowels -- and strive to
create a 30-point word. Pray
you'll land on the (pink square) triple-word-score.