On Round Tables

In the Algonquin where the Round Table met
[Image Source]

I am part of a group that meets in New York (hence one of my reasons for traveling to New York this past holiday season), to have a meal together, and to discuss the latest political/social/cultural developments. I compared this group to the Knights of the Round Table, or the more current Algonquin Round Table, in my email to the host of this group:

I am working on being a permanent presence in New York! But until then, I will make it as often as I can to your "Knights of the Round Table," (although the Algonquin Round Table fits well too!).

In our last meeting, we prepared to "discuss and criticize" the following:

Politics today wants to convert the world into a sort of machine for equal production and distribution of satisfactions. The goal is inhuman, since man is not a machine. It is also unworkable, and the attempt means public institutions that don't function as intended. To some extent that's a feature and not a bug: incompetence is good when the goal is bad.

At some point people will lose faith in the project. Today there are still many true believers but people are becoming more cynical, and liberalism in particular is becoming soaked in hatred and snobbery. That tendency seems likely eventually to reach some sort of tipping point in spite of the enduring idealism, or perhaps sentimentality and literal-mindedness, of much of the American public. Also, at some point it will no longer be possible to make up for malfunction by payoffs. The money will run out or lose purchasing power.

The end result is likely to be something like a third-world dictatorship: a semi-socialist ideology no one takes very seriously, the cult of personality, crony capitalism, corrupt officials, methods of control that rely on the stick more than the carrot, and social and economic life that's mostly off the books.

Such a situation could stagger on for quite a while. It's not at all inspirational, though, and people want to believe they're in a world that makes sense and is going somewhere, so it's likely to be a seedbed for the growth or regrowth of religious communities.

Any thoughts on how these things, to the extent I'm talking about something real, are likely to play out?

I wrote in my previous post, The Fruits of the New Year:

I continued to challenge the destructive elements of our society and culture at my blog and tried to bring in contributors, with the aim of taking this small idea into a larger movement of Reclaiming Beauty.

It is well and good to have a blog, where I write independently on current (and at times historical) topics, and to have a "blog" group. But at some point, these words have to be transformed into some kind of action, and the ephemeral "blog" group has to assemble in some real place, in real time.

That is why think my New York group is so important. As I wrote in The Fruits of the New Year:

I will battle on with persistence and perseverance, and hope to accomplish some of my goals for this year.

Our table is indeed a round table of knights, where we are battling the destructive elements of our society and culture.

My idea of a round table idea was also influenced by my passing by several times the original meeting place in New York of the Algonquin group.

During my trips to New York, I go to a small diner on 44th between 5th and 6th, for a quick and inexpensive meal. It is only a few blocks away from the 42nd Street New York Public Library. Next to this diner is the Algonquin Hotel, where:

After World War I, Vanity Fair writers and Algonquin regulars Dorothy Parker, Robert Benchley, and Robert E. Sherwood began lunching at The Algonquin. In 1919, they gathered in the Rose Room with some literary friends to welcome back acerbic critic Alexander Woollcott from his service as a war correspondent. It proved so enjoyable that someone suggested it become a daily event. This led to a daily exchange of ideas, opinions, and often-savage wit that has enriched the world's literary life. George S. Kaufman, Heywood Broun, and Edna Ferber were also in this August assembly, which strongly influenced writers like F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway. Perhaps their greatest contribution was the founding of The New Yorker magazine, which today is free to guests of the hotel...The group expanded to a core membership that included Edna Ferber, Franklin P. Adams, George S. Kaufman, Heywood Broun, and Marc Connelly.

Though society columns referred to them as The Algonquin Round Table, they called themselves the Vicious Circle. "By force of character," observed drama critic Brooks Atkinson, "they changed the nature of American comedy and established the tastes of a new period in the arts and theatre."

Although my idea of exchanging ideas specifically around beauty might seem tame, it is surprising how strongly people feel when confronted about their definition of beauty, especially in our liberalized society, where everything is gradually being diminished to the same level of ugliness, all in the name of equality. Bringing up beauty as something with standards of excellence seems to ignite a viciousness in people, as though I'm suggesting that we eliminate all those who don't fit with this view.

The idea for specifically battling against ugliness, and fighting for beauty, is I think much more difficult than for fighting for our culture and society. Of course, the first problem is the definition of beauty, although I think there are good enough definitions of beauty. I think another problem will arise when we question people's (most people in our modern society) acceptance of ugliness, and allowing the usurpation of beauty by ugliness. No-one wants to be identified as a nurturer of ugliness, and each will thus defend "to death" his concept of beauty as we criticize and label it as ugliness (or the antithesis of beauty).

Also, I'm saying that beauty is hierarchical (some things that are more beautiful than others), and it is better to be upfront about it than to be subversive (and liberal). The idea of hierarchy in anything, let alone appearances, is not a popular one in our modern, liberal era, and will probably be attacked as viciously as the definition of beauty. And as I've written elsewhere (I'll find the sources), beauty is transmitted to various levels of society, which is another form of hierarchy. Those who have the capacity to see beauty, or to live in beauty (artists for example, or the wealthy) can set the example for others. A beautiful piece of jewelry, in gold and other precious stones, can be imitated in less expensive material, but can still hold some kind of magical attractiveness.

This concept of elitism and societal hierarchy is not popular in the new world (America and Canada), and it speaks of the aristocracy that was left behind in the old world. Although, I have to say that both Canada and America foster a hypocritical and subversive liberal elite, while the "elitist" Knights of the Round Table was actually designed (to be round) in order to remove a "head" of table, and allow discussions to proceed with equal voice (and strength) for all the table's members.

The Round Table is:

...King Arthur's famed table in the Arthurian legend, around which he and his Knights congregate. As its name suggests, it has no head, implying that everyone who sits there has equal status. The table was first described in 1155 by Wace, who relied on previous depictions of Arthur's fabulous retinue. The symbolism of the Round Table developed over time; by the close of the 12th century it had come to represent the chivalric order associated with Arthur's court, the Knights of the Round Table. [Source: Wikipedia]

The Knights' round table was designed to diminish hierarchy, in an age when hierarchy was the way of life. Yet, this group of leaders decided to meet in this "democratic" fashion, in order to have a better method for completing its goals.

This meeting of like-minded, and elite groups, in a democratic and equal fashion, shows that true elitism isn't rooted in demagoguery, and dictatorship. It is just an efficient way of ruling. And that in many ways, Godly and conscientious elites can be democratic, whereas equal opportunity seeking liberals can be demagogues. But, the balance falls against liberals, who have repeatedly shown us that their demagoguery is much more vicious than the elitism (if it is vicious at all) of traditional elites.

Below is the Charge Given to the Knights by King Arthur.

The first line is:

God make you a good man and fail not of beauty.

It is interesting to note that this confidence in ruling is rooted in a Godly humility. And that beauty (I think here it means order)
The next lines continue with the message of goodliness and of protecting and defending the weak:

Thou must keep thy word to all and not be feeble of good believeth and faith. Right must be defended against might and distress must be protected. Thou must know good from evil and the vain glory of the world, because great pride and bobauce maketh great sorrow. Should anyone require ye of any quest so that it is not to thy shame, thou shouldst fulfil the desire.

And chivalry towards women:

Thou shouldst be for all ladies and fight for their quarrels, and ever be courteous...

It is interesting that the Knights, along with their humility and adherence to good, are there to battle the world of its evil tendencies:

Right must be defended against might and distress must be protected. Thou must know good from evil and the vain glory of the world

.
The Algonquin Round Table was also called "The Vicious Circle." It may have been vindictive and cruel at times, but I think its real purpose was to set some kind of standard for art, culture and literature. Like the Knights of the Round Table, the Algonquin group must have had its standards which it felt it had to uphold, in culture and specifically in literature. Its label as vicious must have come from its confrontational stance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------