The mechanics of the "New Sentence" are as follows:
1) The paragraph [rather than the stanza] organizes the sentences;
2) The paragraph is a unit of quantity, not logic or argument;
3) Sentence length [rather than the line] is a unit of measure;
4) Sentence structure is altered for torque, or increased polysemy/ambiguity;
5) Syllogistic movement is (a) limited (b) controlled;
6) Primary syllogistic movement is toward the paragraph as a whole, or the total work;
7) Secondary syllogistic movement is toward the paragraph as a whole, or the total work;
8) The limiting of syllogistic movement keeps the reader's attention at or very close to the level of language, the sentence level or below.
First of all, when Silliman asserts a desire to "control" the reader in order to keep their focus on the language, he takes for granted a certain kind of reader. Silliman's reader would navigate through a New Sentence labyrinth created by the poet's control of what Silliman calls "syllogistic movement."
Davie's imagined reader, on the other hand, is looking for something to "please" them. And if we argue--and we are arguing--that the nearest syntax to the New Sentence is Davie's "syntax like music," then Davie's imagined reader would be pleased by the New Sentence's "fidelity in which it follows a 'form of thought' through the poet's mind, but without defining that thought." But Davie discusses the "thought" as the "experience" of the poem. And, as I read it, the "experience" Davie talks about has to do with the complete thought of the poem, rather than the complete thought of the sentence. And a New Sentence poem, Silliman says, requires the sentence to bear the weight of any "experience" the reader might have since the paragraph is a unit of quantity and not of logic or argument. However, Silliman seems eager to dismiss the fact that when a reader sees a paragraph-shaped amount of writing, he immediately recognizes it as an argument. I don't think Silliman is out of line by asking for a smart reader who can set aside their preconceived notions of paragraphs, nor do I think Davie is out of line by asserting that a poem exists to give the reader "pleasure." However, Silliman does seem to require a lot from his imagined reader. Silliman expects the reader to bring tools to his poetry in order to withstand the "torque" of the poems.
This is a diagram of how I think the torque of a poem works, and what, exactly, the reader needs (click for larger image):
A "syntactic fulcrum" is what allows the reader to form "relationships" on the level of syntax rather than simply on the level of syllogism. The fulcrum is basically the analytical reader's awareness of how sentences are formed, and how grammar works in general. With a conscious awareness of these, the reader can then maneuver through the poem not only by contextualizing the signifiers in the poem, but also by contextualizing the various sentence structures in the poem. This dual-navigation of a New Sentence poem is only possible if the poet is just as fastidious as the reader. And this is what Silliman believes anyone who wants to write New Sentence poems should do.
Poems with "syntax like music" do not require this level of attentiveness from the reader, since the reader approaches the poem with the expectation that this kind of poem is arranged to form some kind of argument or logic. The reader only needs to be able to navigate the poem solely on the basis of its signifiers, because this kind of poem creates its own context.