I think you define intuition into too narrow of a box. Using intuition is enhanced by experience and the general understanding of context. The more experience you have in a field, the better your intuitive judgement is likely to be about related matters. A sports athlete may react intuitively to a situation on the field, but he has to have, at some point, learned the rules and strategy of the game in order to do so. I think the Taoist tradition tends to believe that there is a natural way of life that is in sync, or rhythm, or harmony with the the flow of the rest of the universe, and if that way is followed, it makes living very easy. I think the Buddhists believe that most people tend to lose sight of that natural way over time, due to attachments to things, and the emotions and logic of how to go about maintaining those attachments. I think that is where the quote you pulled is applied. That people can gain an understanding, through experience, that there are choices. The Dude sees one choice as the attachments and desires of a materialistic society, which most people tend to strive for, and the other choice is a more simple, unhurried and natural kind of a life style which allows him to "abide", in an intuitive way, to the natural flow of life and the universe, and, he hopes, which allows him to never get too upset by the storms which crash around him.
And, to take a completely different angle, I would say that the Comanche practiced a pretty natural way of living, but it's not one I'd like to return to.
I don't think the rules or guidelines I have chosen to live my life by have been arbitrarily chosen. The culture I was brought up in has a big influence, my parents, people I admire, and the society in general. But some of the rules I learned that didn't make immediate sense to me needed to be tested and then either discarded as having no basis or accepted as making better sense after the trial. I read a lot and occasionally a book that I read fits my personality perfectly, so I adopt those principals that make sense. And just experience is a huge teacher. I sometimes do things I think are all right and they turn out to have been really stupid or hurtful to either myself or somebody else. Hopefully, when that happens, it's one trial learning. And I can learn vicariously as well, watching others act and seeing how things turn out for them, for better or worse. How do you choose rules to live by?
I would make an important distinction between our nature and our conscience, and it parallels a distinction between "rules of how to live" and "rules of how to live in a moral fashion". Nature and conscience are often (although certainly not always) at cross purposes with one another. They are both within us, and I would even go so far as to say that they are both inherent to the human condition. But our nature orients us in the direction of that which is expedient, or that which is convenient, or that which appeals to our needs or our passions. These "ends" are not always bad things, but instead they may be good or bad or neutral, depending upon the circumstance. Conscience, on the other hand, introduces the moral dimension and orients us toward a consideration of the value of the end itself, rather than the means by which we acquire the end. And it does so with the implied corollary that a greater good has priority over any private good. So when we decide upon a course of action that is more sensible, or that fits our personality, then I think we're talking about something other than the religious impulse. Machiavelli was certainly a sensible man, but he argued, in effect, that the sensible and the good are two very different things. Stalin was also extremely sensible in the Machiavellian sense. What worries me about secular humanism is this sort of confusion between the sensible and the good. Or I guess I should say it like this: I think for some people it is a confusion; I think for others it is a more conscious decision to repudiate the idea that any such distinction exists,--those who want to convince us that there is no good except the private good which helps us achieve some private end. The idea that moral action requires a "return to nature" invites confusion among those with religious spirit between what is sensible and what is good. It also facilitates the argument of men like Machiavelli and Nietzsche, for whom the "good" is merely that which results in advantage. So, consideration of the sensible belongs to a different category of decision-making than consideration of that which is "hurtful to somebody else". The first is value neutral and considers "rules of how to live"; the second anchors our conscience firmly within a greater good and considers "rules of how to live in a moral fashion".
It seems to me that you have set up a straw man to attack in “secular humanism” when the original article was about Taoism of the Dude and my position has been one of Taoism although I’ve thrown in a Buddhist idea as well. Please refer back to what I thought about Taoism and the good/evil and right/wrong issues. Do you see secular humanism and Taoism as essentially the same from your point of view? I think a secular humanist might not make an important distinction between human nature and conscience. I guess neuroscientists might place the origins of the conscience somewhere in the orbital frontal region of the brain but I'm not sure that I buy completely into the idea that the mind is solely a consequence of brain activity. So in that, you and I may agree. I guess I would like to believe there is a dimension of human nature that is not explainable by neuroscience. There seem to be occasional unexplainable anomalies to neurology such as psi phenomena, the nature of genius, hysterical phenomena, multiple personality, mystical experiences, volition, sense of self, and consciousness which some feel have not been fully explained and demonstrated yet by the neuroscientists and thus may not be wholly reducible to brain activity. Until they are resolved, I’ll cling to my love for the mysterious unknowns when it comes to the essence of human nature and the universe. You didn’t answer my question from the last post, “How do you choose rules to live by?”
It will always raise a red flag to me when someone professes that the religious beliefs of another group tend to be more superficial or less genuine than the depth of their own religions beliefs. If you think westerners who adopt eastern religious beliefs tend to be more superficial in their beliefs than western Christians, do you think the converse is true, that Christians in predominantly Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim countries tend to be more superficial in their beliefs than those of the majority religion? Or do you think the minority Christians probably exhibit a significant courage and depth of faith to go against the norm which requires a more true and considered commitment?
Well I must admit that I am unable to respond to your specific arguments. You have referenced enough esoteric writings and themes that it would take me a really long time and a lot of research just to figure out what it is that you said and I don’t have the energy or interest. I do see that you have managed to resurrect the straw-man secular humanism to slay yet once again. I wish that bastard would stay dead but you seem bound and determined to pin his corpse on whatever I say. This is third time I will point out that Taoists clearly define principles of basic moral good and evil in the universe. But I think I may be getting a glimpse of why I have not been able to explain the eastern religious mindset well enough for you to understand. It seems to me (probably simplistic) that God of the Bible, whether it be Yahweh of the Old Testament or Jesus of the New Testament, can reveal the nature of good and evil and the rules of how to live a morally good life by producing oral pronouncements, such as the 10 Commandments or the oral teachings of Jesus, which can be duly written down in the Bible and read and understood by later generations. This is good, this is bad, although I understand that you say that “each historical context in which we find ourselves demands a continual reassessment of the best possible prioritizing” of the basic principles. On the other hand, the Taoists believe the moral code must be understood intuitively rather than verbally. They believe that words get in the way of or even negate the ability to understanding the true essence of their religion and the nature of the universe. “The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.” The teachings of Taoism and Zen Buddhism stress nonlogical and nonverbal cognitive skills, even anti-logical and anti-verbal skills. Their idea is that the most important understanding of the spiritual reality of the universe in its essence is intuitive and gained through direct experience without the intervening systems of language and rational thinking. You may not give credence to such a system or the moral validity of "good and evil" that such a system can produce, but that is okay, and just a fundamental difference between Christianity and Taoism. But even though you can’t seem to fathom how that idea of moral good and evil can be defined or understood in that kind of belief system, it doesn’t automatically push that belief system into your catch-all category of secular humanism. You may have well practiced and documented argument to attack secular humanism based on its lack of clear moral grounds to stand on, but in this case those arguments are simply not appropriate.
