[MD] Platt and Arlo

[Paul Turner]

Platt,

>The metaphor in the article about Buddhist conditionality is much like
>Arlo's "individuals are raindrops" metaphor. The problem I have with both
>is the not-so-subtle implication that individual humans have the same
>value status as inorganic raindrops and ocean vortexes.

Paul:  I don't think the metaphor should be taken this literally i.e., I
don't think he is saying that humans are literally as meaningful as
whirlpools of water.

>" In order to get by from day to day,
>to get on with the apparently urgent business of survival, we narrow the
>scope of our vision to more manageable proportions." APPARENTLY urgent
>business of survival? Clearly the author doesn't consider survival, and
>thus worth of the individual, of great importance in the big scheme of
>things.

Paul:  I think that's a fair statement given the excerpt I quoted although
you might want to read more of the article to see if this is put in context,
but I'm not sure.  When someone says that there is something more important
than one's own survival you wonder if they would put their money where there
mouth is, so to speak.  There have been countless historical examples where
this has been the case though and these people are often the revered
precursors of change. 

>If this be a true reflection of the Buddhist hierarchy of values, it
>explains why in the East human life is held in such low esteem, and why
>millions can be murdered by Mao, Pol Pot and others with nary a twinge of
>conscience. If humans are looked upon as little whirlpools, who cares if a
>few million disappear without a trace?

Paul:  Perhaps.  But on the other hand, from this perspective, to kill
others is to kill yourself, metaphorically speaking.

>Thankfully, this attitude has been rejected by the West where individual
>rights take top billing.

Paul:  I think that needs qualifying.  Only some rights take top billing.
For example, one doesn't have the individual right to steal, rape, kill,
embezzle etc.

Regards

Paul