|
EDITORIAL STAFF '64-'65
General Editor |
EDITORIALS |
|
It is a sad reflection on a PROGRESSIVE society that it should fester in morality ,
its PIOUS members complacently preserving perverse and inadequate dictates
from some semi-obscure historical writings as a moral STANDARD, its moral
LEADERS concerning themselves about disembodied dogmatic intricacies while the
important ISSUES remain ignored. The clergy, those most to be concerned with a
moral relationship of man to man, sermonize inane dogmatisms from ivory
towers, dogmatisms so STATIC, unrealistic and impersonal as to be completely
ineffectual. Here we have embittered YOUTH engaging in orgies of intellectual iconoclasm, rebellion against an institution which negates its aim of
instilling moral sense by its ABSOLUTISM. The church has produced a generation
which is broken into three fragments: a first, imbued, narrow-mindedly, unhealthily,
brittlely, with the dogmatism, a second, indifferent or intimidated, un-
concerned or HYPOCRITICAL, and a last which, though concerned, has repudiated
the body of religious morality as realistically impossible. The ancient church
leaders chose to set themselves up as the administrators of the ORDER, and
maintained law under the fear of the WRATH of the Almighty. Since then administration
of that order has passed into the hands of the law.enforcement
agencies of our modern SOCIETY. Though it is one of the axioms of social
existence that each member of that society accept the laws of that society, the
line between law and morality has become fine, and its position determines a
state of FREEDOM, or a lack of it. But YET people continue to confuse the aspect
of the order, the Thou shalt NOT, with the aspect of morality, a personal morality
based, not on insipid negations, but on a greater altruism and a realization
of the STATE of man.
It is for the traditional moral body of our society, as well as for us, to face the great DECISION. We can continue in our present course, flying in the face of intellectual movement, alienating ourselves one from another, or we can begin a long and searching process of REASSESSMENT of our moral concepts and of their SOURCE. |
|
| --- MATTI INGERMAN | |
|
Many people say we are in "the happiest period af our life" while we are
young, But since, during this time, we are merely learning about what is ahead
of us, would it not be completely ridiculous to call it the "happiest" stage we
will go through? Nevertheless, even if this is true, and even if we are still sheltered by our parents, are we to remain oblivious to everything around us, groping
for an accepted place in life?
Looking around, we see both "good" and "bad," Success, we are told, is good, But then how can we define success? Far too often we see a wealthy businessman and label him "successful," while we turn our backs on those who are not well off, But are we not, in the last analysis, setting our perspectives according to society's dictums? In other words, is it not true that we look for acceptance from others rather than from within our own self? It would appear that rather than man building society, society is building man. This "automatic" society is evident wherever we go, Men work day in, day out, hoping to make more money, and when they have achieved this goal, feel that they must work even harder to get still more money, It seems that "quiet desper ation" is the only product of the evolution in our times. Existentialists claim that man lives, basically, only for himself. While this might seem rather harsh in the light of world achievement, it would certainly put our own standards into a clearer focus, for, if this is the case, we should look for a deeper, more personal way of life - a way of life in which the common man can find an identity rather than a category. But what relation does this have for us, as part of a younger generation? Seeing this pattern of conformity for conformity's sake, would it not seem that we should look for something in life that was, above all else, personally satisfying? If this were true, then progress would come as a personal search for self-acceptance. This desire for self-improvement would rule out mediocracy, and in its place would be the "happiness" of improving a society in which one could move freely. Therefore throughout life it would be possible to adjust society to personal experience, rather than to be withdrawn into a sphere of conformity. Above all, the previous "happiness of youth" would be remembered with a special meaning, for it would be something to improve upon in the future, rather than merely to think back upon. In this sense our system of education would reach its purest form. |
|
| --- PETER MOORE |