I'm not sure a poet who evokes psychoanalytic concepts directly is in fact more in touch with the unconscious than one who doesn't. Psychoanalysis is just another consciously deployed metalanguage that claims, dubiously, some explanatory power over the unconscious. The same could be said of surrealism. Sure, there are associative techniques that claim to uncover unconscious material, but what emerges tend to be linguistic commonplaces turned on their head. If you are free associating and trying NOT to be predictable, what tends to happen is that you reach for the opposite word, the reversal of the cliché. All this is simply my reaction to the thoughtful discussion on Silliman's blog about the unconscious. My idea is that the unconscious exists, but that we don't in fact know anything about it. I don't think we can evoke it as a category: "this poet uses it, this other poet doesn't." It is similar to my reaction to religion. If there is some superior being, we can't in fact know anything about it. No discussion of religion has any real foundation.