>>11116357I think it is no better than FreudIan analyzes.
For those that don’t know, in the 60s or so it was popular to do literature analysis doing Freudian style analysis of the book, than someone noted that his students kept coming up with widely different subtexts which made him start to doubt, and that teacher became on of the strongest and most famous anti Freud people around, writing several books talking down the man and his work.
Anyways the point is it is pretty impossible to test, too many steps in between, so it is all conjecture, and the parts you can test is better called biology or animal sciences, or dna work or somethings.
Lastly: these influences from our distant pass ARE important, but not scienctifcitly knowable, so you need to leave it up to the humanities to create the rubrics and insights.
