From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Tue Nov 08 2005 - 23:57:52 EST
> >Perhaps we could talk about what is right or wrong with Lewontin and >Levins rather than the more loaded term postmodernism, because for >me they come very close to how I think. I've read a lot. Dialectical Biologist may have been the second most exhilirating reading experience I've ever had. (Readers of my posts will know that the first was HG's big book.) One serious criticism of L and L's Dialectical Biologist was John Maynard Smith's reprinted I think in Did Darwin Did Get It Right? I think the gist of it was that dialectical categories have been superceded by developments in mathematical modelling, e.g. saddle points. L and L are of course well respected mathematicians. Also given that their dialectics are ontological rather than only epistemological I can't see how they are postmodernists. Moreover, their dialectics being rooted in nature, how could they be similar to Derridean concerns about differance in and through language? And perhaps their ontologizing of dialectics is a problem.? I don't know, but I think Steven's suggestion is an excellent one. OPE-L'ers should know that the chapters on methodology in his book on Indian modes of production are quite excellent, very well written in that way when one truly has something new and important to say. But alas I have not yet unpacked my books. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 10 2005 - 00:00:02 EST