We could say the act of writing makes us happy, but the supposition is more involved than that. Prefer to say, "being in a poem." But what is the relation of writing to that? Especially to someone like Lyn Hejinian who read as much in philosophy and natural history as in poetry.
Suppose you could write something upon which no one would bother. But then, "hope" is a reader with feathers. So anyway happily you proceed: Say with a title. "A name by chance for anything on which we have no claim"(.) Think of an educator taking away the child's canvas to bestow it upon the parent: timing is everything. "The good is the chance with things that happen that inside and out time takes"(.) But then Plotinus says that "the good" will never be extrinsic proof? What is the "erect discourse"?
[I think of the proverb Dr. King included in his final speech, reflecting on the stabbing he'd undergone ten years earlier: "If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been around in 1962, when Negroes in Albany, Georgia decided to straighten their backs up. And whenever men and women straighten their backs up, they are going somewhere, because a man can't ride your back unless it's bent."]
So Hejinian: "A good person would be starred ill or well in a life he or she couldn't know how to refuse"(.) For our "onward chanced back" and "language is running" -- it's to this extent that it can be construed, only chancily, as "erect". So Hejinian, quotes -- which is no proof -- Flaubert, who wanted his "sentences erect while running -- almost an impossibility."