C.S. Lewis - Abolition of Man

What exactly is the Tao? Lewis' first definition of the Tao is essentially the universe that we live in: a 'lifestyle' that we suscribe to. To me, there are several components to this: our organismic physical/biological wills and determinants; our morals, subjective values and value system; and what you might call our philosophy or attitudes regarding things such as our existence, search for god, etc. As people within this Tao, we acknowledge that it exists, try to define it and, as the human drive goes, see if a way above it exists. He talks about ways of overcoming the Tao, though, on page 61, that I take issue with.

His conditioners are those that use "eugenics, by prenatal conditioning and by an education and propoganda based on a perfectly applied psychology." These people think they have overcome human nature and can start programming it into others. However, my argument is NOT with if that really makes one overcome human nature.

What I am saying addressed something he raises later in the chapter. And sorry this is taking so long to bring up. He talks about what would happen if we stop following the Tao, which I think is a good argument for monotheism, and talks about our existence as purely rational beings and what that would entail. I don't think that we can ever become rational beings for a few reasons.

One, I am suspicious that we have some sort of motive to become these rational beings, not looking at it from introspection or what we know that we strive for, but in the romantic notion that it has to us. I don't mean to bring this up arbitrarily, but I am referencing the theory that [our inner desires, what we find attractive and 'naturally appealing', etc.] gives some gateway clues into ourselves. By this notion, our romanticization of things such as a utopia, eugenics, and rising above the tao indicates a drive for such behavior coming from within the tao itself.

Secondly, isn't any rising above the tao still within the tao itself? Same with the laws of induction, how can something within something else, that uses the larger template to define its existence against, rise above that? Since the tao is defined as human behavior, and extends outwards to a universal level, then no possible human behavior exists (by its very definition) that can surpass the tao.

By these two points, Lewis' points about what would happen if one were to rise above the tao, what would compel them to act in a humane manner, etc. are rendered invalid BY HIS FIRST DEFINITION OF WHAT THE TAO IS. However, taking his points on secular ethics aside from this first point, meaning why would someone who surpassed their human nature still do good when good has no definite value, I would like to make the distinction that this is a completely separate argument that whether or not we can actually surpass the tao or create an artificial tao, etc. This is a valid argument that once again is a good reason to keep belief in some sort of higher power even when 'reason' may not point to it.