1. How many HKPC meetings have you attended?

Of the 20 respondents, 4 had attended all or nearly all of the meetings. 6 had not yet attended any meetings. (These were mostly people who are interested, but have only recently learned about HKPC through the SCMP listings.) 3 had attended one meeting. 4 had attended two meetings. And 3 had attended three or four times.

2. Were you satisfied with the "philosophical content" of the discussion(s)?

16 people answered this question: 8 gave "yes" (or generally positive) answers; 7 gave mixed (or non-committal) answers; and 1 gave a negative answer. The only definite "no" was from someone who has had a philosophical education and regarded this answer as "a statement of fact - not a judgement," adding that it is an open question as to whether or not a Philosophy Cafe should aim to attain such a high philosophical level.
One of the "yes" respondents has also had a philosophical education and "was pleasantly surprised" that "there was sufficient philosophical content", since most who attend are non-professionals. Another "yes" response observed that discussion has been "free" and open, with "no sensation of us ("laymen") and them (semi- or "fully-read philosophy readers) at all." Others applauded the "wide ranging" topics, "logical arguments" from "various angles", and "profound insights". One added that the "process" is more important than the "content".
Two of the mixed answers complained that "there are too many sidetracks", with more "direction from the moderator" being needed in some cases. Others observed that some topics were "not well defined enough" and that topics "about relationships" are better than more "abstract" topics. One said having an "interesting and stimulating" discussion "is more important" than the issue of content. Another would prefer "more debates on ethical issues, or the pursuit of 'truth', or 'beauty', instead of something quite bland and not really that controversial." And one person who has not been able to attend any meetings thought the content has been good, but wishes there was a way to participate by email.

3. Aside from the issue of philosophical content, to what extent or in what way(s) did the meeting(s) you attended live up to your expectations?

The 14 responses included appreciation for the "lively" or "free and open" discussion, the good moderation "supported with philosophical anecdotes at the critical moments", the chance to interact "with people from different background" or with "difference in opinion" (mentioned twice) and who share an "inclination to 'think'", "learning about new ideas", the "very friendly" people who attend (mentioned in 3 responses), the "quite interesting" topics, the "informative" sharing of "various insights", being inspired to think "more philosophically" and in a less "black and white" way, and the "polite" and "respectful" conduct of the participants.
Four of the responses gave negative points here (apparently not having read ahead to question 4). One expressed the desire that discussions begin "from the very basic fabric of our lives, issues that we deal with everyday" rather than the existing tendency to focus on "the definition of things". Another thought the group has sometimes been "too big", resulting in "a number of people dominating the discussion" and others not speaking out at all. A third commented that the moderator needs to guide the discussion more effectively. And the fourth expressed the desire to have "more specific references to philosophy, and quotes of philosophers."

4. ... to what extent or in what way(s) did the meeting(s) you attended *fail* to live up to your expectations?

Not counting 3 people who gave "see above" responses, there were 5 answers with content given here. 1 observed that the process of choosing the topic of the next meeting "was sadly a particularly un-philosophical and quixotically dogmatic event" at the May meeting, suggesting that topics could be selected later on a discussion list or bulletin board. Another suggestion was to have a "coffee break" as an ice-breaker, during which people could discuss the topic in small groups immediately after the introduction. Other problems mentioned were: sometimes people "lose interest in the middle"; too many "love-lorn ladies agonising about relationships"; topics have been "too abstract" and should be "more related to o daily lives"; some people "repeated or emphasized" their views in a "stubborn or subjective way", tending to dominate the discussion. The latter problem is made worse by sitting around one table: this "makes the air a little bit nervous", whereas it would be better "to sit in smaller circles and discuss together freely in a more relaxed atmosphere"; this would "allow people to ineract more and prevent some people from dominating the discussion with their own ideas."

5. How regularly do you expect to attend HKPC meetings in the future?

All 20 respondents answered this question. 8 people said attending one meeting per month is about right, though 3 added/implied that they can't make every date because of other commitments, so a greater number of choices would increase the chances of being able to attend. 2 people said they plan to attend irregularly, but added that they might attend more often if the quality/interest of the topics were higher. 2 people said they plan to attend all the meetings. 1 plans to attend about 80% of the meetings. 3 said they could handle two meetings per month, one mentioning that the topics should be more interesting in that case. 2 said they would attend as often as possible, with more meetings being preferable, because other commitments sometimes get in the way so sometimes the specific date ends up being inconvenient.
2 people added additional concerns: the need for a better venue (quieter and closer to an MTR station) as a reason for not attending very frequently; and weekends being better, so that people "don't have to rush to the cafe after work and miss their dinner" or "worry about waking up late the next morning".

6. ... do you think it would be valuable to have listmembers send in quotations up to (say) a week before the meeting, and for the listowner to collate these submissions and circulate them to the list a few days before the meeting?

15 responses to this question. 6 people thought the current arrangement is fine. 1 pointed out that the suggested changes would increase the workload of those involved. 1 added that if too much is given beforehand, then people might come with prepared speeches, and the discussion would "no longer become an innovative discussion".
6 persons would be happy to receive the longer emails with quotes, comments, etc. 2 of them suggested a "compromise": "post the quotations, comments and a suggested reading list (I strongly suggest adding the last item) on a web page and provid[e] the web address with the reminder email." A third suggested using "some sort of newgroup or bulletin board." 1 person said that "if someone has pertinent authorities to share", there should be a way of making this possible. Another added that we could "keep two mailing lists, one for the long email with all the comments and stuff, and the other for the shorter email." [See question 11, below.] And 1 thought it would be good if "members are allowed to jot down their ONE line preliminary comment on the topic and return to the listowner who will circulate these comments to the list memebers. This way, people can have more time to think about the topic in advance." Longer quotations could "be distributed in photocopies [at] the meeting". 1 person thought "a bit of guidance/homework might enrich the discussion - and perhaps make it more serious."
1 person thought the "status quo" is okay, but "it might be nice to experiment with such variations", including "choos[ing] the topic at the beginning of the meeting."
1 person responded that "sending in quotations and/or comments in advance is a bit peculiar", except "a list of preliminary reading". On the issue of choosing topics, 1 person thinks the current policy "is not satisfactory: it makes it impossible to develop a theme, or any logical progression. Instead, I think we ought to have a 'programme' of topics for, say, six months ahead, which is advertised in advance."

7. Should the person who will be introducing the topic (and/or the moderator/listowner) send a message to the list before the meeting, itemizing some of the philosophical issues related to the topic and/or some typical strategies for dealing with it? ...

Of the 19 who submitted responses to this item, 7 said there is no need for a change. Some of the reasons given were: if we have had a list of quotations circulated, that would be good enough; we do not know in advance who will attend; the change might make the discussion less "spontaneous" (mentioned three times) and "impromptu"; it "sounds rather intellectually pretensious and competitive"; too much like a "classroom"; just knowing the topic "should be enough" to let people prepare.
3 people thought either way would be okay, 1 mentioning the value of experimenting, and 1 suggesting that there could be two groups, with the more "serious" group requiring more preparation.
7 people expressed (sometimes qualified) approval of the suggested change. 2 mentioned the potential "marketing" value: "if the introduction is written in an attractive manner, perhaps it would help draw crowds!" Reasons/qualifications added here were: "as long as there is no dogmatism involved" and people understand that "participants are free to ignore" the suggestions made; "a little preperation never hurts anyone" and in fact, is likely to make the discussion more intelligent, and therefore more interesting; it would be good "to know more on the issue beforehand"; a simple agenda with a "very very brief" sneak preview "will be fine", as long as it is not very detailed and not "so serious"; a "short introduction" with "2-3 clear points could facilitate the start-up and provoke less confusion during the first half as well as shortening the introduction time during session."

8. Should we continue to encourage anyone to volunteer to introduce topics at the beginning of each meeting? Or should the person who introduces the topic always be someone who has some philosophical background ...?

All 18 responses actually AGREED (!) that anyone should be allowed to introduce the topics. Since this point does not appear to be debatable, I won't summarize the reasons given. But several people added some important qualifications: when those who are not academic philosophers wish to introduce a topic, they "should discuss it over with someone who is an academic philosopher beforehand, so that it won't be completely void of 'philosophical' content"; if the introducer has to "send round some suggestions for preliminary reading", this "will act as a useful selection mechanism"; some guidelines should be provided for the benefit of "amateur" introducers; introductions by non-academics should be "based on some thought and reading and not just stream-of-consciousness stuff."

9. During the discussions, has the balance between discussing each other's opinions and considering established philosophical views been about right? That is, should the moderator devote more effort to explaining past philosophical theories and/or be more strict in directing attention away from opinions he/she regards as being less philosophically significant? ...

Of the 15 responses to this question, 9 thought the balance has been good--one even said "nearly perfect"! "Any more theories per night might bog down our thinking." It would risk making the discussion "too much like a 'teach-in'"; unless we start forwarding quotes by email beforehand, the moderator's job should just be to moderate; in fact, if theories are to be introduced at all, "they should ONLY feature in preliminary reading." 4 said they would prefer to have more appeals to "relevant philosophical theories", but only at the level of "introductions", not detailed explanations; this would make the discussions "more interesting and educating", though it does "not [mean] that personal opinions should be discarded". 1 person suggested there should be no more than 3 such interventions per discussion. 3 people were non-committal: 1 asked whether the question implies that the moderator wants to "push one alleged philosophical view and suppress others", and another stressed: "Independent thinking is always to be highly prized." Probably the most philosophical answer was this one: "It depends on whether cultivating people's knowledge in philosophy is more important than encouraging people to think more philosophically."

10. Should the meeting summaries be composed in such a way that they are more like a philosopher's *response* to the issues discussed, rather than just a chronological recounting of what was actually said? ....

Of the 16 responses, 7 people expressed a preference for a more evaluative summary: it "will help broaden people's view on philosophy", especially those who are "not too familiar with philosophy"; "it is very exposing to do so". 3 people said we should "try both ways": "the chronological report could be followed by the moderator's further reflections, if any." 6 people thought the summaries should continue being a more or less objective account of what happened. Since the moderator and introducer already have more influence on the discussion than others, this should come out in the summary. Anyway, nobody should be allowed to have the "last word" in this way. If we have a discussion list, any "comments or 'response'" could be given there.
1 person expressed a rather more radical opinion: "the meeting summaries serve no useful purpose and should be dropped."
1 respondent gave the following suggestion: "As an alternative (especially if we move to fortnightly meetings) certain meetings could be given as a lecture on a particular philosopher of philosophical view point to get more people up to speed. I think laymen would appreciate occasional "lectures" as much as general discussions, but not mixed up together."

11. Should we try to structure ways of continuing our discussions of a given topic after the meeting itself is over? Here are three ideas that have been suggested to me:
a. Convert this list (currently "announcements only") to a full-fledge discussion list....
b. Keep this list as an announcements list, but have another list for those who wish to discuss the issues. A variation of this would be to allow each person to choose whether or not to have their email address visible when the announcements are sent around....
c. Hold a once-a-month online conference/chat session during which we would discuss the issues further....

18 people responded to one or more of these options. 5 supported option a, one adding that the list should be "free-ranging", not limited to last month's topic. 6 disagreed: one said "I can easily find a discussion list elsewhere"; two mentioned already receiving too much email; and two said they prefer "to limit my discussions to face-to-face encounters during the monthly meetings." A danger in having such a list is that it might not attract people to attend the meetings, because it could easily "deteriorate into a 'sez-you, sez-I' argument unless it were heavily moderated, which would take lots of time." 1 person recognized the potential benefits, but echoed the dangers of on-line discussion being unproductive.
On option b, 12 people saw "no problem" or even a "preference" for this approach. One added: "but can't they do this themselves informally afterwards? ie exchange emails and take some initiative? Please be careful of confidentiality. I personally don't want my email in everyone's access."
7 people approved of option c, but most rather mildly. At least 4 disapproved, some quite strongly. One said "If we had monthly on-line discussions why go to the Open Kitchen at all?" Another said: "i don't think we have enough people for this." And one asked "can we just have more meetings?" One who approved in theory added: "[I] personally [prefer] sticking to the real life monthly face to face exchange."

12. As the number of people interested in the HKPC grows, the likelihood of holding more than one meeting per month increases. However, in order for this to be feasible, we will need more people to assist with leadership an organizational matters. Would you be willing to do any of the following?....
a. Introduce a topic.
b. Moderate a meeting.
c. Take notes and write them up as a summary....
d. Organize a separate regular "branch" (?) of the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe. e. Assist with web site maintenance and/or advertising issues.

18 people responded to this item, with a variety of offers to help in various ways. 1 person expressed interest in having more of a leading role if "the discussion is conducted in cantonese." On item d, one person added: "I think you need an "A" stream and a "B" stream, both for the meetings and for the web-based discussion group. There would be no selection - except self-selection - but one would be for the more serious/ semi-professional people and the other would be for the love-lorn ladies and their ilk (to put it very crudely!)." And one person suggested that we set up "an organising committee, appointed by you in the first instance, but elected thereafter, which would be responsible for policy decisions and for deciding how the whole show should be run.