Well I'm not sure that this subject will be resolved easily. I do think you have tarred Chomsky as a "mentalist" (which may have some slight merit), but that tar need not touch the validity of a universal "language acquisition device". As stated before, such "gizmos" can be explained in rather conventional neo-Darwinian terms.When Red writes:
"Without a biological propensity for society, we could not have environmental determination of humanity but also, if there is a degree of commonality, of universiality through biology then some of the enlightenment project may still be valid."
I think he is touching on one of the great unresolved problems confronting "critical theory" - that is- a need to legitimize a universal, normative behavior. I am no scholar, and am just beginning to delve into some of the social philosophers. But it seems to me that Marx grappled with the problem of how and what universal values would emerge as a result of the dissolution of a class society. Perhaps the idea that the 'fully realized' individual would somehow become a rational and just >Social being once the artificial constraints on behavior by a capitalist superstructure were removed. He obviously was repelled by the mysticism (essentialism?) found in the Idealists, and presumably sought a materialist foundation on which to solve the problem of how individuals are brought together to form a social contract with political obligation based on a valid universality. The ''enlightenment project" (if I understand any of this) would hold that such universality would emerge through the unique ability of humans - (through language/communication) to arrive at consensus/compromise through reason. (Although this does smack of ethical relativism based on the immediacy of pragmatic problem solving.
On the other hand - your Utopia 2000 and other examples of 'intentional' communities offer a way out of this dilemma by successfully avoiding it. I picture a billiard table landscape with occasional dips or "gravity wells" that draw in billiard balls that find themselves close by. I'm not certain how far such influence" can be expected to reach. Should it prove highly successful, you can be sure that it will receive considerable attention. In the words of Chomsky (who has provided many with important insights) such communities would pose the "Threat of a good example" (originally used for Nicauragua).
In the meantime, I'm still looking for a "fairness" gene.
bill
