RE: The biological goal of the human mind (fwd)

>Ironically, Richard Dawkins, one of the popularizers of sociobiology, has 
>been one of the clearest exponents of "the blind watchmaker" paradigm
>(the 
>non-intentionality of differential reproduction of genes). It is very 
>interesting that Jay has not mentioned him in the discussion at all,
>since 
>Dawkins' notion of "memes" -- gene-like concept units that use brains to 
>reproduce differentially -- has generated considerable attention in
>popular 
>discussions of social knowledge and behavior.

>[Of course, Dawkins theory -- first articulated in the final chapter of
>*The 
>Selfish Gene* -- can be criticized as idealist and functionalist. But at 
>least for a sociobiologist, it could offer some mediation between genes
>and 
>culture.]

>John Everett Till


dawkins is well-known to be a representative of new-right thinking in
socio-biology. i have read _selfish gene_ before. his ideas are very close
to fashism, covered and justified in a neo-liberal dress.as for the
mediation between genes and culture, i would say that his way of looking
at culture is conservatively reductionist and methodologically
individualist. in the book, what dawkins does is to reduce human behavior
to genes and abstract the effects of social environment, culture, and
other macro determinants from human nature. that is how he arrives at the
very idea of _selfish gene_.  if i were you,i would think about him
deeply..

two great names i favor in socio-biology: stephen gould (_ever since
darwin_) and lewontin (at harvard)  

best wishes,

mine doyran