The Nature of Proof in the Interpretation of Poetry

"According to his theory the poem is like an ink blot in a Rorschach personality test. There are no correct or incorrect readings: there are only readings which differ more or less widely from a statistical norm." This pretty much sums up his opinion on interpretation of poetry. It doesn't have a correct interpretation but it does at the same time. He is saying that there is no real wrong answer but there definitely is a right one. I liked when he said "a writer should not be his own interpreter...the poet is eager to be understood". The poet does not want to have to go back to his audience and explain what he really meant. The ambiguity of poetry is what makes it so colorful.
"If a poem, then, does have a determinable meaning- if, in the interpretation of poetry, we can't say that 'anything goes'." When I read this, it seemed to me that he was arguing the point that we cannot make up any interpretation of a poem that we want. There are limits when interpretating poetry. Sure, there is room for error, but not very much.