Abstract
Proponents of neuropsychoanalysis often invoke dual-aspect monism (DAM) as an epistemological framework to justify neuropsychoanalysis as a theoretical and clinical endeavor. This paper investigates whether two case studies from applied neuropsychoanalytic literature are consistent with the tenets of dual-aspect monism. The paper finds that while dual-aspect monism remains a promising framework for unifying neuroscientific and psychoanalytic paradigms, there is work to be done to make studies in applied neuropsychoanalysis consistent with a DAM framework. Otherwise, neuropsychoanalysis will remain neuroscience by another name.