intello heavy weightyism throwing volatile feather stroke punches

Same Senseless Ramblings, Slightly Bigger Stage, or Intellectual Investments in Jolly Corners - 209K Wow, this is the heaviest hardslugging sort of intello weightyism I've come across in a dog's age; it's all about what literary theory can bring to psychoanalysis and whatnot (including vica versa), . .. .. mighty mighty interesting, I only wish Laurence Rickels (on whom more all throughout past work; check the logbriefer for most recent) would join in here.

The original curriculum proposed by thread initiator http://acephalous.typepad.com/ Kaufman is ignored in favor of a Holland book, reference to which posted by first commenter http://jgoodwin.net/ Jonathan, here's Kaufman's response: "Holland neglects to mention one significant difference between geology, astronomy, medicine and psychoanalysis; namely, that the first three can produce empirically measurable results, whereas psychoanalysis cannot. Holland confuses the theorizing for practice, equating the theorizing of Lyell, Darwin, etc. with psychoanalytic theorizing, then ignoring the fact that the theories of Lyell, Darwin, etc. could be and in fact were later verified by empirical evidence. The strongest possible version of Holland’s claim is that psychoanalysis is, right now, as much of a science as geology or evolutionary biology in the 1860s...and that’s not the claim he wants to make. (As I’ve mentioned before, I entered grad. school a psychoanalytic critic, but I’m leaving an apostate.)
But this isn’t the discussion I wanted to have; I’m less interested in the truth of psychoanalysis in general than its possible utility for literary studies in particular. Is it possible for psychoanalysis to be utterly wrong about people but eminently useful when addressed to novels/poems/etc.? "