I read the book (活在書堆下) in one go last evening. As a result I slept late and went through today like a zombie. The book is a collection of articles about Law (羅志華) and the bookshop (青文書屋). Everybody was saying essentially the same thing. Very repetitive. But I want to get a feeling of what people think of him and what he did.
The bookshop nurtured many writers and readers. It was an important part of the literary scene for a while but had been in decline for many years before it was forced to close. He was not a shrewd businessman. He was not even a writer himself. He sold books, helped readers find books, and helped writers publish books. Everyone appreciated his dedication to books. But ... he was fighting for a lost cause. Few people in Hong Kong read. And even fewer read literature, history and philosophy. He had fewer and fewer customers.
I wonder what he is thinking now. Is it enough that he persevered in doing what he believed in? Even though few people seemed to care?
In principle we should care only whether we are doing the right thing, and not how people think of us. But we are social animals, and we crave recognition, acceptance, and respect.
A year ago, Law Chi-wah （羅志華） was killed when stacks of books fell on him in his warehouse. A year later, his friends published this book in memory of him.
As far as I know, he is the only person ever killed by falling books. Some people, apparently without malice, consider that it is actually an apt - even though extremely sad - way for him to die. For he was the long-term proprietor of 青文書屋 (1981 - 2006), one of the original “Second floor bookshops” (二樓書店 ) in Hong Kong. These bookshops specialize in literature, history and philosophy. They were popular among certain readers for a while, and actually helped to nurture some of the few writers in Hong Kong. I had been to 青文, but cannot remember whether I had actually met Law in person.
“Popular” is, of course, a relative term. Second floor bookshops did not choose to open on the upper floors, where they are hard to find, visibility and traffic are low, ... Not many people actually read books in Hong Kong to start with. Hence bookshops that specialize in unpopular topics such as literature, history and philosophy really cater to the minority among the minority. Hence they have to move to the upper floors because of the lower rent.
And with the appearance of large chain bookstores in recent years, second floor bookshops are essentially doomed, and many have already closed. 青文書屋 itself was forced to close in 2006. Since then, Law had been storing his books in a warehouse, and trying to find a place to re-open his bookshop. Before he died, he had actually rented a place at the Shek Kip Mei Creative Arts Center (石硤尾創意藝術中心). Now, it seems, his friends may be able to revive his dream. Being a dreamer myself, I do hope that they succeed.
In any case, it is not a flattering portrait of Hong Kong.
I like Anonymous’s comments on my original post so much I am reproducing them here for better access.
=============================
1) There cannot be scientific proof of the existence of a god. There can neither be scientific proof of the non-existence of a god.
2) In a nutshell, nothing --> simple elements --> inorganic compounds --> organic matter --> simple life forms --> complex fife forms --> humans is evolution. About 10 years after Pasteur's refutation of spontaneous generation, Darwin mentioned the idea of abiogenesis, "some warm little pond" in a letter. This is the area of chemical evolution, though of course he didn't use the term.
3) There is microevolution, and macroevolution. No one argues with microevolution. Microevolution is slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species. Macroevolution is the origin and diversification of species. ID questions whether Darwinian evolution (abiogenesis, common ancestor, descent with modification, natural selection, random genetic mutation) can account for the many macroevolutionary changes and the origin of biological complexity.
4) Have there been detailed mechanisms or models of intermediates in the development of complex biological structures? There are alternative explanations for homologous structures and universally shared biochemical processes etc. (The scientific method cannot be used to argue for evolution here. So is evolution really science? Evolutionists' arguments are: it must have happened in this way. But give me the evidence please.)
5) Scientists should be allowed to follow evidences to the conclusions, even though they may feel uncomfortable with the conclusions. a priori commitment to only naturalistic explanations is a 'religious faith' in science itself.
6) The naturalistic worldview has dominated academia for the past 150 years. It is naive to think there is no persecution for dissidents. Just check out what happened to Prof. Reiss (himself an evolutionist) of the Royal Society in Sept 2008. Even suggestions for debating evolution are not allowed.
7) Scientists are people too. We have our likes and dislikes and prejudices. Science done by people cannot be totally neutral.
Evolutionists believe the universe has no design, no purpose. The inevitable outlook is: humans are one big (or maybe just a small) accident. They don't know where they are going. To me, this is sad. But maybe since there's no evolutionary advantage of being sad, natural selection will select for pitiless indifference.
I would like to thank Malcolm and Anonymous to make such detailed and thoughtful comments on my thoughts on “Evolution and Intelligent Design”. I agree with some of the points raised by Malcolm but not all of them. And I agree completely with Anonymous. Her original comments are highly recommended.
To continue with the discussion:--
Hundreds of years ago, some scientists were oppressed by people in power because what the scientists theorized were thought to be incompatible with the then dominant view of what the world was like.
Gradually the naturalistic worldview has achieved ascendancy, even dominance in the scientific world.
It is so ironic that once in power, people who hold naturalistic world views turn around to exclude everyone who want to even consider dissenting views.
There is currently a fierce but lop-sided debate in Hong Kong regarding the teaching of alternate theories to evolution and natural selection, and more specifically, Intelligent Design.
The dominant position, as seen from the media, is that evolution is the only acceptable scientific theory. By evolution, it is meant (with gross simplification): nothing -> simple elements -> inorganic compounds -> organic matter -> simple life forms -> complex life forms -> animals -> humans. According to this view, theories such as Intelligent Design are simply religious dogma and must be banned from any discussions of science, even in a university.
As far I can understand, Intelligent Design argues that certain features of the universe and living things are so complex that it is unlikely to be produced by undirected processes such as natural selection, but more likely to be produced by an intelligent cause. To me, this argument is worthy of being investigated in science. It may be wrong, but let us see the arguments and the evidences before we decide. That is the spirit of science.
Researchers in Intelligent Design should submit their arguments and evidences to reputable conferences and journals just like other scientific researchers. Let their peers review and debate the merit of their work.
Whether Intelligent Design is science is not the decision of reporters, talk show hosts, government officials, and even university administrators. It should be the domain of fellow scientists.
Banning the discussion of such theories from scientific studies is dogmatic.
Theorem 1: The number of books that a Hong Kong student reads is inversely proportional to the student’s grade and age.
