The Return of the Doubt Issue

I don't think it had occurred to me quite so starkly before, but this is a classic application of Occam's razor.

It was while discussing with an older man who had come along to try to help me see the error of my ways that it became clear. It seems to be a generational thing to some extent, as it is always those of more mature years who exhort me not to think. Those of my own age think of that as something a bit theoretical, and are very happy to concede that thinking is in fact necessary. They are not blind to the problems of the brethren and their position, and realise that unless one is prepared to challenge elements that seem wrong, no progress will be made towards the ideal.

In fact, such brethren will admit to sharing a lot of my feelings about many things, while firmly differing on the conclusions.

But the older element see things differently from the base upwards. For them, my clarity of mind is an obstacle to overcome, a burden laid on me to make things difficult. I am told that thinking will always lead me astray, and to rely on faith instead.

And that's the point. If you start by assuming that logic will lead you to the conclusion that something doesn't make sense, which is the more sensible belief: that there is something mysterious (the religious word is "ineffable", I think) behind it that man is not intended to understand, or that it simply doesn't make sense?

At which point I am sorrowfully told that I have allowed the devil to get hold of my thoughts, while being assured that the statement is not meant personally.

I don't object to paradox and glorious ambiguity in christian doctrine - it's pretty much built-in, and I rather enjoy that. But I do think it's arrogant to apply the same reasoning to rules that people are expected to live their lives by. If you're instructing someone to do something at a cost, you should be able to back it up, not just fall back on "thou shalt not question, for this is the eleventh commandment".

Visitors

So much for being lonely.

After the first week of solo living, the number of brethren calling on me has steadily increased, and I have now had visits last Wednesday, Friday, Sunday, last night, and I'm expecting another tonight. I missed two on Saturday because I wasn't there, so they don't count.

The odd thing is that none of these have been official visits in any sense, as I haven't seen the "priests" for nearly four weeks. Admittedly one of them has been ill during that time, but even so I am a little surprised.

No, all visits so far have been from concerned friends and relatives. Mostly they phone politely first, but sometimes, as last night, they just appear and tap on the door. Then we share some discussion about assorted irrelevant things. The phrase "elephant in the room" comes to mind. Some have touched lightly on important issues, but only quite briefly. Last night's visitors, for example, wanted to book an appointment for more serious talk, as they have read and worried about my written statement. Apparently they have been delving into some of the undeniable problems that had been beneath the carpet until I wrote them down, and want to report back on their findings.

Meanwhile tonight's visitor (not confirmed yet, but expected) wants to visit on his own, on a friendly basis, but is just back from Australia after a last-minute invitation. Make of that what you will.

Frankly, I have never heard of so much contact with anyone who has purposefully left the fellowship.

And is it good? To be honest, I have mixed feelings about it all. Obviously it's nice to see friends, and there is a sense of continuity. And, now the meeting place is mine, I have a certain amount of control, and I needn't trouble to play down the range of my books, or the computing equipment, or the music, or the DVDs ... even so, it was a bit naive hoping that I would become suddenly immune to disapproval about such things. I can do a pretty good impression of total lack of concern, but that isn't quite the same thing. Just as a conviction that possession and use of them is moral, normal, and OK, is not quite sufficient to quiet the awareness that others think differently. More to the point, though, conversation while avoiding big subjects is not really either enjoyable or companionable.

I think that's the point of the visits. A friend told me of some he knew that have never let go of the brethren life, and remain fearful that the brethren will discover the things they do and take more action. I begin to see how that could come about. At whatever level, the brethren know it, too, and hope that regular contact with them, in some form or other, will provide an inoculation against "worldly" things.

Being polite and inoffensive to a fault, I will find it hard to do anything about this, but I may have to start. Not in a hurry - that wouldn't be my style - and not so as to precipitate further moves before I'm ready, but an awareness that I need to move beyond this point should help me at least during the visits. And act as a reminder any time I'm tempted to minimise or conceal something just to keep the peace.

Music for Brethren, pt 3

"Loving the Alien" by David Bowie: "believing the strangest things" indeed.

"John Saw That Number" by Neko Case.

Anyone with a low tolerance for popular music, I apologise, but I consider it a valid form of art when done well. If you can't bear to hear such stuff, a Google search for the lyrics will give you the flavour.

The Problems of Life

Today is a public holiday. No work. No meetings. No obligations.

So, of course, I am staying at home and working in a different way, and I haven't even managed to think of a treat I could give myself. Cue violins at this point. Even the sunshine, which is rare and precious this summer, is being used only to dry my washing.

There is, though, a certain sense of achievement in getting things straighter and more sorted out. Clutter is useful as a defence: as any teenager knows, there is no better way of staving off investigation of one's room than to have it look like a junk-hole. Now, with no avoidance necessary, I am gradually finding that orderliness in my circumstances leads to more clear space in my mind, which is good and bad.

But I discover that I really don't know how to run my life. There are two main obstacles, the food and the money, both of which other people seem to manage by instinct or something.

I am determined to eat well and healthily. That means buying fresh produce where possible, and that isn't an arduous task. But how the hell am I meant to keep track of the stuff? A good many items of the vegetable variety are unusable within a few days of purchase, so my meals need to make use of them. But if a pepper needs using today, and an onion tomorrow, and the carrots would have been better yesterday than today, and there are recipes which use either pepper or carrots with the onion, but not both, does one shrug one's shoulders and throw something out? Or is it the done thing to plan ones meals in detail for a week ahead before shopping? Does one develop a gut feeling for what there is and when to use it, or are there methods?

Then there is the budgeting. As it stands I am comfortable, with a useful margin between my income and my spoken-for expenses. However, I don't know how long that will continue, and I would like to see exactly where the money is going and predict it, so that I can tell what I need to do to be self-sufficient, and so that I can weigh up the risks and benefits of capital expenditure.

I need a sofa. How badly do I need a sofa? More than I need a storage cupboard? Or a small additional freezer? If I decide not to use any more of my savings, at what point will I have the money in hand to buy these things?

I don't know what anybody else does about this kind of thing. What I would like is a combination budget/accounts program on my computer, where I can put in notional expenses for prediction purposes, and turn them into actualities as the spending happens - ideally the predictions should get better on their own, as the application notes the expenses for itself. But it looks like it will be easier to write the program myself than find just that. And I've a good mind to.

While I'm at it, a rolling calendar combined with a recipe database would be nice too. Enter your ingredients as you buy them, together with use-by dates, and it would flag up in advance things that need using, with ideas for meals based on what's in stock. Why not?

I'd like to know how my mother manages, but it's a bit tricky asking her.

Elements of Leadership

It's been an enjoyable, if solitary, evening, the solitude more noticeable for having shared a meal yesterday for the first time for two weeks.

I like to read while eating, but I prefer the reading matter to be disposable. So my home-made cottage pie and peas was accompanied by Scientific American's reporting on the latest studies of effective leadership qualities. And, of course, a varied selection of music from last.fm (those who haven't yet come across this genius bit of web 2.0, see me afterwards), which I have discovered provides a very diverting combination of classical and early-to-mid jazz when asked to provide artists similar to George Gershwin. Just right as background. Then, having a lime which needing using, I accompanied a gin and tonic with a chapter on Albert Camus.

By coincidence, the two pieces of reading material dovetailed quite neatly. The key quote from Camus was "tyrants conduct monologues above a million solitudes". This was taken to mean that those with absolute power choose to impose a consciousness of that power by forcing their thoughts on others, and the very banality of those thoughts is an exercise of power in itself. Nobody else is to be allowed any individuality of thought, and the worthlessness of alternative thought is emphasised by the meaninglessness of the monologue over the top of it.

Does this sound at all familiar to anyone who knows the brethren?

By contrast, the scientific investigation of leadership chimed more with my own conclusions in saying that effective leaders are governed as much by their followers as vice versa. This study concluded that while charisma and personal qualities were useful in leading others, the most important quality was an ability to identify with the masses and have them identify with you. This is kind of obvious, if you think about it: who is more likely to inspire loyalty, someone who feels like "one of us", or those who set themselves apart? Even so, it is surprising the extent to which fellow-feeling overrides competence.

This is something I've often thought about the brethren leadership, that actually there isn't as much freedom of action as might be thought. The secret to the power is not top-down, although it is easy to see it that way, but more bottom-up, as the ultimate expression of the essence of brethren-ness. The commands which have caused the most trouble in the past have been those that didn't seem to be what those immersed in the system could recognise as a logical moving on from existing brethrenism.

That means that real noticeable leaps need careful groundwork beforehand, and that is a lesson that seems to have been learnt, as can be seen in the current changes in technology. With enough shifting of the background attitudes, and reinterpretation of previous statements, even what may seem to be a ridiculous about-turn from outside can be made to feel inevitable on the inside. But that rather proves my point. Real absolute power could simply decree the change. Leadership is obliged to take the temperature of the following mass.

Perhaps that explains the evident enjoyment of absolute power demonstrated in the ability to foist a never-ending sequence of banal thoughts on the loyal followers.

Technology

This morning has been one for pondering machinery. The delivery men have finished thudding downstairs with a new washing machine, and it is humming through a cycle on empty to clean away the manufacturing residue. Meanwhile, I have been attempting to rid my mobile phone of the notion that it mustn't send my number out when I call people.

That task failed, incidentally. The network said I should take it to a shop, the shop said it needed resetting to factory defaults, and I've waited until now to do that because it's a tough job reinstalling the various useful functions. Even so, everything is back up and running, a bit more snappily for being rid of the junk that accumulates within multi-purpose electronic devices - but still no caller ID.

Still, at least I have a mobile phone, and wouldn't be without it.

Oddly, the mobile was always much more of a worry to brethren than my computer(s). I puzzled about that at the time, because the phone is a convenience, whereas the computer is the key to a lot of things, many of which are far removed from what the brethren are happy with. It proves once again that the real reason for many brethren attitudes to specific things is not the stated reason.

When such phones first became a practical proposition for people other than stockbrokers, they were placed without question on the "banned" list, on the simple grounds that they were radio-based. At the time, any such devices were banned, and I recall a teenager being shut up for weeks because he owned a radio-controlled car. Needless to say, he has had an apology more recently. Cordless landline phones, when they appeared, were equally evil. Some were even worried about cordless kettles.

Things have shifted, both within and without. The brethren now have no difficulty with radio waves, and it is as though they never did. The only worry is what is done with them. So entertainment via radio remains a "pipeline of filth", as is television whether it arrives through the ether or a cable in the road. Most brethren seem to have cordless phones. The new computers are often connected to their broadband routers by wi-fi, as few premises have network cabling. There is no more close questioning whether the remote lock for a new car operates by infrared instead of radio. Meanwhile, mobile phones are no longer simply phones, but versatile freedom-inducers.

And there, I think, is the key.

Brethren now have phones in their cars. However, they do not have truly mobile phones. Nor do these phones do anything except make calls. A prime condition of possessing (not owning) one is that one does not let anyone else know the number beyond a trusted one or two. So, in other words, the freedom element has been almost entirely removed. Initially, most were even to be locked to only a few outgoing numbers, too, but that seems to have been quietly dropped. What is wrong with mobiles is not how they operate, but the independence that comes with them. In a closed society, that cannot be allowed, and the rules come very close to admitting that that is the real reason.

The change in permissions for technology over the last year or two has been a classic piece of brethren revisionism, and I have found it fascinating (as well as irritating) to watch. As recently as the last couple of years, it was publicly stated that brethren would never, ever, use faxes. Now, as is customary when these changes happen, that was never the case. Some of the other differences must have been happening in the background for some time, as it is years since my computer was discovered and I was told that as it wasn't evil in itself, nothing would be done - well, it was more complicated and guarded than that, but that was the essence.

The current position is that when technology was stated to be out of bounds, back in 1982, it was not the items themselves that were outlawed, but the pursuit of them: "the latest and the best". Consequently, sufficient time has now passed to see how the world makes use of these devices, and where the pitfalls lie, and the brethren can cautiously introduce the useful features while being protected from the snares. And everyone can congratulate each other for being so wise as to leave it until now. And those who persecuted anybody for making use of such items before was always way out of line.

I think the ground has been well prepared now, and it will be quite possible to introduce more technology without further philosophical upheaval.

And I'm still wondering what to do about my phone.

Tolerating Intolerance

Last night, reading Clive James (and I recommend the practise), I enjoyed his comment that we call things "imponderables" not because we can't ponder them, but because we can't stop.

Here's one that has occupied me for literally years.

If one is tolerant of others oneself, and considers that tolerance is an important component of civilisation, how far should one respect others' intolerance?

I'm not entirely sure whether this is a question of ethics, logic, or simply consistency, but it hardly makes sense to insist that everybody should be as tolerant as one is oneself. As soon as you insist that your viewpoint is superior and should take precedence, you're undermining the central point of respecting others. It's a paradox, and one I've never been able to solve.

The question has come up repeatedly in the last few days, as people ask how I feel about my friends and relatives cutting me off over a divergence of views, and also witnessing others' struggles with prejudice. It isn't easy even to deal with the question, let alone give a satisfactory answer.

By temperament, I prefer to allow people their own attitudes, whether or not they're harmful ones. I am not sure enough of anything at all to insist on it, and besides my own attitude tends towards Darwinian anarchy, in which all ideas and actions stand or fall on their own long-term effectiveness rather than external judgment. But other than gut feeling, I have never been able to find a single reason to justify my conclusions. It's simply what I feel comfortable with.

I know there are many crusader types who can't see an injustice without wanting to step in and sort it out. The spread of that attitude is what has caused political correctness, and I can't say it's wrong, though it grates with me.

I have a suspicion that it isn't healthy to insist on a single viewpoint in society, even if it can be demonstrated that it is the best one. People need the freedom to be wrong, and it's better to have it out in the open. So, in that sense, it would be better to develop thicker skin than to censor the bigots.

And what does this have to do with the brethren? Well, they can stand in as representative bigots. Personally, I think they're wrong to be as insensitive and intolerant to others as they are, and I don't think the attitude can survive in the long run. And yes, that does mean that I think I know better. But I can't bring myself to insist that they should be forced to recognise my views, let alone insist that my views should be theirs.

You can't get out of a paradox without inconsistency, and that's the one I prefer.

Baby Steps into Adulthood

It's a strange feeling being totally responsible for myself so late in life Generally, I suppose, most people would have become independent more gradually, and much younger.

Still, here I am, and have managed a few days without running out of clean clothes, getting utilities cut off, suffering food poisoning or malnutrition - not that those are in any particular order of worry. I had feared that it would be harder to adapt than it is, being used to a certain amount of pampering, and that pleasant environment where food and laundry appear as if by magic. It's not really a hardship doing these things for myself, just real life.

Inevitably, of course, when I phoned a stranger last night (well, the making of friends has to begin somewhere), the conversation had to turn to my current situation, and it becomes easier to explain my background than to give no reason for having lived with my parents for thirty-three years. That, apparently, is relatively normal in Italy, but counts against one here.

Fortunately, as I had been told, people find the background interesting rather than sinister or pitiable. And, I feel, it is better to have become an adult in my early thirties than to have never taken the step at all. Now is what counts, not the past.

It proves very hard for people to make the connection between christianity and exclusivity, though. I have a suspicion that many future conversations will depend on me finding away to explain how my family can call themselves christian, not hate me, yet have no contact. Well, actually there is still contact, and the level is probably quite high compared to many ex-brethren, but it's pretty meagre by any other standard.

More Sovereignty Thoughts

I suspected this was too big a subject for one post, and so it proves.

The first extra thing to say is that these pieces on the beliefs and attitudes of the brethren are reported as seen, while they're still fresh in my mind. To do that, I put myself into the brethren mindset. There is not much of my own opinion.

Frankly, I don't know why it is so important that people stay where they're put and make the best of it. It is very deeply ingrained, as those who asked me how I could think it right to leave where I'd been placed by God preferred to think that others should stay in atheism or Islam rather than admit that people should move on.

There are also many other awkward questions. If one is in a position under another's authority, and that person wishes things to be contrary to one's own convictions, which comes first, subjection or conviction? And, more painfully, can there be a point at which the two are so opposite that the authority must be rejected? If so, where does that leave the general principle?

Again, I don't know.

My observation is that once again the brethren are much more pragmatic than principled. If the conflict is with something that is very important to the culture (note, not principles as such), then the sovereignty can be freely ditched. So mostly women should be subject to the closest male relative (ideally, a husband), unless he is threatening the fellowship in any way. As I've said before, I reckon the ultimate aim of the brethren group to be purely its own survival, and nothing ever stands in the way of that. So somebody wanting to leave will have no authority that counts in any way at all, not to his wife or anyone else. I haven't seen it happen, not being privy to many couples' private lives, but I suspect the same would apply to any other destabilising commands.

I suppose this could be justified within the rules by saying that it is a primary assumption that God wishes all brethren to be in fellowship, so therefore that piece of sovereignty trumps any others. That's the great thing about all this: if you can be utterly sure of knowing what it is that God wants, then the reasons and actions all fall into place.

Sovereignty

It is impossible to grasp the brethren's attitude to almost anything without being clear about this streak of fatalism.

The brethren don't go as far as the Calvinists, in claiming that one's destiny is pre-ordained and unchangeable, and as is so often the case when religious positions are close, they would strenuously deny any similarity. Yet they do believe that there are many aspects of an individual's life that are set in place by God, and even when those things are in the power of man to alter, it would be ungodly to do so.

Looking from outside, the most visible expression of this is the elect vessel himself. Chosen by God before birth, and protected from fallibility (not personally infallible) for the sake of his position, it would be folly in the brethren's eyes to challenge him. God has seen to it that he is where he is, and wishing or working to change that would be to set oneself against God.

But viewed from within the fellowship, it is a person's own life that is most affected. While it is clear that brethren are free - and encouraged - to better their circumstances, the same does not apply to changing one's position relative to others.

That means, for example, that a man can never be free of the authority of his father, as, even in old age, and even when his faculties are diminished, the relative position remains unchanged. In practice, of course, common sense is applied, but that remains the working assumption.

It applies, too, to employment. Whatever the relative merits of the people concerned, those in charge have a different status to the workers, and that must be recognised by both sides.

It is important to realise that such distinctions are not intended to affect anyone's view of the inherent worth of any individual, even their view of themselves, though many find that difficult to apply. More, it is as though as a person and a christian, each is given a different set of tasks to learn from. For some, those tasks include authority, and to be a good christian they must apply it rightly, while for others it includes obedience, and they must learn subjection. Most people, of course, get a mixture of both, and it would be equally wrong to wish for more power or less. One must work patiently within the parameters set to prove one's worth.

I am reminded of Shakespeare's "all the men and women merely players."

In fact, gender roles are very literally roles. The old brethren saying about the line of authority is "God, Christ, Man, Woman". That is, that it is so ordered that each is subject to the authority of the preceeding. A male, by virtue of his gender, is a source of authority, and his responsibility as a christian, on finding himself in that position, is to exercise it rightly. Someone born into the female role, while held to be of equal personal worth, is required to be subject to that authority as her responsibility as a christian. These are parts to be played.

The attitude extends into many areas. The brethren find it hard to understand, let alone accept, the modern idea of "equal rights". For them it is axiomatic that everybody has different rights and responsibilities, and that God would have it so.

Many find it a great relief to have their paths defined for them in this way, even as they chafe against specific aspects of it. Knowing one's place is a proof against many kinds of stress. That, of course, doesn't make it right.

On the Leaving of Things

I try to take things with me where I can,
Devices that seem normal, not too new,
Objects that my hand knows how to grasp
As well as thoughts that take no energy to think.
There is a spice to newness, but it's rich,
And savoured best when sprinkled on the bland.

Too many pieces of a former life
Stay back among the pieces of their own,
And they are gaps for me, as I for them.
My emptiness is wide, as much is lost,
But like the missing item of a set,
I fear theirs may be deep and catch the eye,
A sorrow difficult to bear because alone.
Not knowing that is one more gap for me.

For absences are not like real things.
They can divide and multiply at once.
A missing instrument is not the thing itself,
But songs no longer played, and those who heard,
And moods no longer matched by melody,
The uses, habits, practise, now disused.
So missing friends are noticed in the way
That no-one knows the meaning of a phrase,
Or laughs at jokes so worn they don't need words.

But unlike them I still have gaps ahead,
The better kind of gap, not dead but fresh,
The unknown future, full of unknown friends,
And simple pleasures not yet guessed.
Besides, the things around me that are new,
The petty tasks that aren't quite yet routine,
Although they cannot fill the holes, loom large
Enough to block the view of what's not there.

Best not to look at spaces where things were,
The things now left behind in what is past.
Like other sadnesses they crave my gaze,
Will act the Hydra, feeding on the fight.
People are too large to simply miss,
The gap revealed by things that still remain.
Like making tea for one, not two or three,
Remembering that one needs extra milk -
The knowledge useless now except to frame
That gap.

Changing Times

Last time I was going to write about how much it annoyed me that the meeting times were shifting, but I got sidetracked.

Most meetings have been at more or less the same time for years. I can remember a few shifts in the Lord's day pattern, most obviously from the "nine, twelve and three" times, which were once reckoned to be based on divine principle. Those were in addition to the six o'clock supper, which is still a principle.

So the schedule used to be six o'clock, then nine o'clock for a reading and preachings, then the later times varied from place to place, but around here were one-thirty and four o'clock. Then on Monday the meeting was at seven in the evening so that whole families could be there, then the remainder of the weekday meetings were at quarter to eight (half past seven for some places). Finally Saturday was at nine in the morning unless something special was going on, in which case it could be earlier.

Some while ago somebody heard a whisper that evening meetings should be earlier, and Friday and Tuesday were moved to seven. That worked reasonably well, as those meetings are for locals only.

Then came fresh light about Wednesday, which is "the hill of God", and very important as the furthest in time from the supper in both directions. That has become a compulsory occasion for all the family, and was consequently moved to half past five in the afternoon, or as a gracious concession, six o'clock. That really is impractical, for reasons of work, traffic and meal times. Many businesses have had to revise their hours of work. However, the time stays, and those not too blinkered to see the problems quietly assume that the difficulties are a large part of the point.

Lord's day was the next to be changed around. The reading is now at ten, to allow more time for wives to prepare meals, and the later preachings at half past two and half past four. Opinions are mixed on that, but it seems OK on the whole. Just as well, because that's the way it must be done.

Finally, somebody dug up some statement from somewhere that said that the prayer meeting should be earlier than the other evening meetings. So that has moved to quarter past six - which is not earlier than Wednesday, but if you expect this stuff to make sense then you're an incurable optimist. That was the last straw for me, and I stopped going to those. I didn't often go anyway, as there were few things I was willing to express in public.

It seems to me to be part of a wider scheme of monkeying around with lives so as to appear to be doing something. And if the changes are inconvenient, so much the better, as it's a chance for sacrifice for the greater good. For that reason, although it's a trivial issue, the whole thing irritated me enormously.

It may have changed again by now, of course.

Copyright

Eagle-eyed regulars may notice that the heading to my blog page has been defaced with the ugly addition of a copyright notice.

The intention, in due course, is to make the blog public again, and it would be nice if that had little effect except to make life easier by cutting down on the restrictions.

I would like to think that copyright would be taken for granted, as it applies whether or not such a statement is made, but it doesn't always seem to be that way. Anyway, for the record, my position is that these are my private musings, which in the muddle of my head seem to become more possible and paradoxically more private the wider the readership (because individual readers are lost in a crowd, so I'm less conscious of them), but only as long as the writings stay where they are so that people have to specifically come to the blog to read it, and the content isn't forced on their attention elsewhere.

So it's a personal thing. I can live quite well without the notoriety of a platform for my thoughts which, even when they're worth saying, aren't worth shouting from the rooftops. Especially when such shouting hurts my family.

As I understand it, "fair use" covers quotation for a purpose. I doubt whether wholesale reposting elsewhere counts. In reality, I don't have the resources to do anything about anyone who does do that, but I'd hope they would have the decency to respect the combination of law and personal wishes, especially if they're already taking the moral high ground.

Critique of Meetings

If this were a normal brethren Sunday (sorry, Lord's day), I would have four separate occasions of gathering to attend, instead of trying to find out why my washing machine leaves powder residue on the clothes after washing. On the whole, I know which I prefer.

Actually, I never much minded the meetings themselves. In the usual way they are kind of restful and make no demands. But the fact that one must rush from occasion to occasion is stressful, and the shortage of people willing to make intelligent conversation afterwards is also trying, given that there is often more standing around than sitting in the meeting itself. As an aunt of mine once memorably said about her dislike of special meetings (three-days, and the like - see the non-existent glossary): "I don't mind the meetings, it's the playtimes I can't stand". And we agreed on that, as on much else.

When asked, as I have been more than once, "what do you think about in meetings?", I struggle to answer. I don't really remember. I do know that I never had much success with planning and working out problems, as the atmosphere was always wrong for serious thinking. On the other hand, if I had the structure of something in my head, it was a good time for refining details.

Mostly, though, I treated the meetings as a spectator sport. I never really tired of approaching them as a critic would and giving them my skeptical attention. That starts with giving notional marks out of ten to the various speakers for their contributions, divided up into general effectiveness, originality, luminosity of illustration, quality of phrasing and, of course, the all-important consistency. Then that widens out to the general occasion itself, as the overall effect of the team effort is often quite different to the quality of the contributions.

I don't see why anyone wouldn't find this an interesting occupation. It's a bit like a jazz form of theatre in which the players, while amateur and improvising, are committed to the result, and therefore the whole thing is intense with intended meaning. You don't need to believe in any of it to enjoy the study.

As I said, consistency is the first thing to watch. Is a comment consistent with the current theme? Does it match with what the person themselves has said before? Do they believe it enough to live in accordance with what they're saying? Then, as part of the general study, is it something that fits with current teaching, and if so, is that itself consistent with previous teaching? To gain high marks in this, the statement must be both relevant and fit neatly into the pattern of brethren beliefs, and, usually, be an unchanged belief. However, the highest marks are reserved for new items of teaching that make more sense than what went before, as I was always keen on correcting earlier inconsistencies. I might add in passing that long-term watching of this is very effective in building up a picture of what the brethren really believe and what is subject to pragmatic change, and the real structure of what they know as "the truth".

Originality is obviously harder to come by. Safety is always first for contributions. Yet if someone can manage, within the strictures, to say something which sounds fresh, they deserve a bit of applause, even if it's in my head. Some do actually do quite well with this, sometimes by having deep thoughts of their own instead of rabbiting whatever's going around at the time, sometimes by having a way with words so that they can say something perfectly normal in an original way.

Quality of phrasing and illustration is closely linked to that. It's definitely not done to use complicated words, but some are good at creating images with simple talk, and I admire that.

Lastly is the effectiveness. That's not only a subjective judgment, which counts for a little, but mainly a measurement of the audience atmosphere. There have been times when I've been left entirely cold by somebody's performance, yet the rest of the listeners have appeared to be greatly affected. In which case, all credit to the man concerned, and I need to study closer to see what it is that is having that result. The ultimate sign of effectiveness is when somebody is quoted afterwards, and in some cases the quotations will continue for years.

The latter element doesn't really apply to special meetings, as they are supposed to be effective and influential, and therefore are assumed to be so unless all the preceeding aspects are direly deficient. Which can happen, and then I pity the poor people who are supposed to relay it all to their congregations back home.

And now I'm spared all that, and have my critical capacity available for more profitable tasks. Though hopefully it has been useful to exercise it.

First Weekend

I had thought, in a vague sort of way, that the weekend would stretch out before me blissfully, like a holiday from the week. That's compared to weekends among the brethren, where normally you'll get approximately half a day to get things done in, and a day and a half of organised activity.

But no. I went to a supermarket in good time (before nine o'clock!), and stocked up with enough essentials that I should be able to avoid going again until the middle of next week. I hope. Then the plan was to get some washing done so it can be drying while I get on with the clearing up and sorting out and putting away ... etc etc. However, the weather is not too cheerful, and I have no clothes airer indoors. And I have an iron but no ironing board. So I guess it's back to the shops for me.

Routine is a valuable thing in my opinion, because it saves mental effort on repetitive tasks. There are many things I have no routine for, just yet, and I don't even know how much of my time will be taken up by them. So I imagine I won't get as much done over this weekend as I had planned. It would have been nice to take a trip out for some entertainment in company, having spruced up the place to my satisfaction. Maybe I still should, regardless. I'll see how things go.

Fortunately, this is not the only weekend I have.

Mental Recycling

I've said before that I consider myself to be a lucky person.

That may partly be just an attitude thing, and if it is, I won't try too hard to change it. I understand that research has shown that the clinically depressed have a measurably more realistic outlook, as judged by their assessment of future probabilities, but I doubt that accuracy is worth the price. It's a revealing question to ask oneself: deep down, do I really believe that things always work out for the best for me? Even what appear to be set-backs?

My own answer is "yes".

So I've been through hard and stressful times recently. Do I wish I hadn't? Or, as my parents asked, do I wish they'd made it easy for me to go? Come to that, do I resent the years that it's taken to get to this point?

It would be easy to, unless I look at the alternatives. In the ultimate philosophical sense, if I'd had a different life, I wouldn't be the person I am. I might be a better person, but I wouldn't be me as I am - and I don't wish for my own non-existence. I appreciate the tenets of Zen, but that's a step too far. It is something I often think of. The road ahead, right now, is rich with possibility, and the bumps and detours behind are all part of what got me here. It would be churlish to wish them away.

And in a practical sense, I think it has taken me an unusually long time to develop the maturity to stand alone in the way I now have. I seem to others to be young for my age, and have only recently felt that people take me seriously. So I suspect that without those years behind me I would struggle.

The real crux of the issue, though, is that we need the dark times to show up the light. Without struggles and sorrows, how can we appreciate the good in life? I don't think you need to be religious to see that often trials make people better than they were before, and I think that's something to be valued. Fortitude is like a muscle, it needs exercise and building up. I can look back on various proverbial dark nights of the soul, and they both give me strength to get through tough things of the present, and set the happy aspects in sharp relief.

In addition, or maybe even more importantly, empathy with others often requires a range of experience in one's own life. Sharing others' feelings is an important part of life in so many ways, and in practice, one usually draws on remembered feelings of one's own. Happiness maybe doesn't need the help, but past sadness or anger can provide the key to reacting rightly when confronted with the need. People in such situations mostly want to know their emotions are understood, not to have their problems solved for them as such. Understanding requires recognition and fellow-feeling.

In many ways I think a life spent among the brethren is useful in this regard. You get to mix at close range with many people, and share their trials and triumphs. It also teaches you to endure frustration and boredom, and to work within a structure and make the best of it. There are many negative learned behaviours, too, but let's not forget the positive. And even recognising the flaws the life has encouraged in my own character reminds me to be more accepting of flaws in others.

Then, to descend from the philosophical heights, there is the notable advantage of an unusual and interesting background. I was told recently that ex-brethren are never short of listeners at parties. And the unpleasant reality of modern life often involves competing for attention in one way or another, an activity where any kind of difference can be useful.

And then there's the writing of fiction, in which a rich backstory and unusual experiences are a positive help. But that's another story ...

Music for Brethren, pt 2

A couple more nominations.

"Highway to Hell" by AC/DC: I don't actually know this one, but it sounds a good companion to "Jericho Road" and "The Hell-bound Train".

"High on Sunday 51" by Aimee Mann. Mainly because of the chorus, which includes "hate the sinner, but love the sin". Pardon?

Budgeting for Beginners

Young brethren these days, whatever the state of their general education, would have to be wilfully deaf to be untrained in personal finance.

As I've said before, being among the brethren requires serious financial commitment. Looking up at the mountain of money needed to set up a home from the poverty of school years does focus the mind, and there is plenty of help for those wishing to learn how to accumulate it - not to mention prodding for those who appear less keen. If you also remember that any involvement with the opposite sex is forbidden until that home is set up, you can see that many would be eager to acquire the funds just as soon as possible.

So, as you'd expect, there is an entire network devoted to helping. Young men (and to a lesser extent, young women) learn very soon about the benefits of early saving as opposed to postponed saving, and frivolous spending is discouraged. Most would be familiar with the graphs that show how mortgage repayments and terms are affected by the size of the down payment.

Employment, too, is often structured to encourage saving. Those working for family will probably be massively overpaid from day one, but even then part of the wage may be diverted to investments for them. This is not uncommon for non-family employees, either. The most common method is to leave the money within the company, earning interest at commercial rates. Obviously this applies to businesses that are well-established. An alternative route for young men with drive is to join a newer business at a lower wage and hope to gain faster as the business grows.

It used to be, until quite recently, that it was more or less obligatory to save half the value of a house before buying, so that it wasn't remotely likely that a crash could result in negative equity. That has become a very tall order in many parts of the world, so the exceptions that were often made for people with special needs are now very widespread. Mortgages for a large percentage of the house's value are still strongly discouraged, but there are brethren who will make up the shortfall - normally still at commercial rates, but without the risk of the loan being reclaimed in hard times.

Unless, of course, those hard times are moral ones. The leverage that brethren-owned debts can give is so obvious it doesn't need spelling out.

After that, the objective is to pay off the bank just as fast as humanly possible. That has always been the case, but it is now being pushed very hard indeed. I know of several cases where young couples have been instructed to pay off thirty-year loans in five years, or even three.

I'm not sure on the detail of that. There are a few budgeting schemes being circulated but, not being in the position myself, I haven't seen them. Employers are encouraged to pay their young employees by need rather than merit, on the grounds that performance will follow reward. Then the employees should be emptying every last corner of their wage packet into the mortgage. There are still the costs of brethren living, the entertainment, the collections, but nothing over.

Now I'm paying my own way, I think it would have been nice to have a bit more idea how it was done. Not only was I a little too old to get the training, I wasn't inclined to take much notice. It takes maturity to recognise good ideas coming from a source you've dismissed on other grounds, and I have lacked that. So my financial skills are limited.

So far, my method consists of an Excel workbook with sheets for capital expenses, recurring expenses and general expenses. I'll keep an eye on that, and I suspect just being aware of where the money goes is a good start. Then the bank is advising me to begin a pension scheme ...

Argh. Money.

Worldly Intentions

Most people, Christian or otherwise, would say that the things a person owns shed very little light on their moral worth. There are some exceptions (slaves come to mind), but generally it's actions that count.

Brethren are unusual in that respect. They are defined to a large extent by the items they do and don't possess. Especially the ones they don't.

However, even brethren consider someone's actions their defining feature. "Show me thy faith without works..." So I've no doubt they'll be watching with interest to see what depths of degredation I sink to, even if my home doesn't appear to be riddled with worldliness.

And it's an interesting question.

I can well understand that, once clear of the claustrophobic restrictions of brethren life, some people must be very tempted to ditch the rulebook entirely. I can also see, though it's not really my way, that some may wish to hang on to as many rules as they can while ranting about the few they found unacceptable. It's hard to view an entire lifestyle dispassionately enough to weed the good from the bad.

My answer to loved ones who anxiously ask what it is I want to be free to do, is: nothing I wasn't already doing.

Broadly, that's true. I begin to realise, though, that it isn't the whole story. Although I felt unconstrained by the rules while still among the brethren, there were some activities that simply weren't practical or desirable at that point.

One kind of strange example: yoga appeals to me. I feel the need of an exercise regime, but I lose patience with conventional types, and being an elastic sort of person, and a thinker, I think yoga would suit. It's a difficult thing to teach oneself, so classes are required. And when are these classes held? At the brethren's meeting times.

Missing meetings for yoga is definitely worldly.

Then there are all those activities which are only good in company. Restaurants, cinema, theatre etc, which lack something when visited alone. And in the absence of brethren companions (at least recently), I haven't been going to these places. But I will.

"Links", as the brethren call them, are another thing. I'd like my business to be a separate entity, and the law says a company needs two directors. That would be a no-no, but I have no worries at all about it, just as soon as a suitable candidate presents themselves. I might even join clubs, too, though I'm not sure which and why just yet.

Some things I don't intend: smoking, nightly pub visits, betting, looking for one night stands, clubbing, holidays in the sun, maxing out my credit card, getting tattoos and piercings. There are probably more, but those are the things I see going through brethren's heads when they think about people who've left them. Fine for some, maybe, but I don't see why I need to experiment with things that don't appeal.

Other than that, I can't think of much that will be new. Am I missing something marvellous?

Music for Brethren, pt 1

While I'm on the subject of music ...

The brethren have a love/hate relationship with it in a very literal sense. It's enjoyed very much, yet also feared in a way as being too enjoyable in a non-spiritual way. Past official approval probably means that it will never be banned entirely, but the approval is a bit more cautious these days. Still, though, it's thought necessary to at least ask one's visitors if they can or will play some music.

The taste is for largely predictable middle-of-the-road popular songs. Nothing too challenging. Bear in mind that brethren should never hear the originals, only reproductions by amateurs who shouldn't have heard the originals either. It takes either considerable talent or an extraordinary song to survive that and remain enjoyable. Or, alternatively, the songs can be much the same as each other so as to save effort on interpretation.

I've thought for a long time the repertoire should be broader. So, belatedly, here's the beginning of my list of songs that brethren ought to appreciate (but never will).

In first place, one that will surely never be beaten for sheer appropriateness:

"Australia" by the Manic Street Preachers.

Secondly, another with uncanny lyrical accuracy:

"My Affair" by Kirsty MacColl. Altogether now ... "They told me what to wear, They told me not to cut my hair".

I expect this will be a growing list.

The Differences

OK, so I am no longer living with my parents, I am not going to the brethren's many meetings, and my time is my own.

So what? How does that help? That seemed to be the hardest thing for my family and friends to understand. They assumed there must be some dreadful secret that I wanted to indulge away from their eyes, or, worse, that I had no standards left and wanted to indulge in anything going. It appears to be utterly incomprehensible that I should want to continue much as before but away from them - and put like that, it does seem a bit selfish and antisocial.

To be honest, my intentions are in a state of flux to some extent. Leaving the brethren is a process, not an action, and I doubt I will think the same way even a few weeks from now. But that is part of the point. Without making that move, entirely unnecessarily from the point of view of those left behind, I would have been unable to move my life forward. As I couldn't accept the brethren's life, I had a choice between an increasingly bitter limbo and a fresh start. And a key feature of a fresh start is that you can't know what follows. I like that.

As things stand, I'm not doing anything I wasn't doing before. That will change, no doubt, but I'd be surprised if it turns into the downhill slope my family fear and expect.

The main difference is the focus of my home. It's still incredibly untidy, but already you can see that it's intended for living in. Brethren's houses are built around visitors. If I were setting up within the brethren circle, firstly I'd have a bigger place, but also more room would be given to the dining table, and there would be plenty of chairs, arrranged so that everyone can talk in one conversation. I have a cheap table, but only three chairs in the entire house so far. I'll have to do something about that, but it isn't first priority.

The most shocking detail to brethren eyes would be the openly displayed computers. They have become more used to them, of course, but there is still something that jars, even to me, about a screen in the living room. And the speakers. However, to judge by my previous experience, once they realised that the screen was a monitor and not a television, they would revert to disapproval from shock.

This house has a satellite dish and all the cabling, but I have no immediate intention of getting a TV. The reasons are both practical and principled. Firstly I think it's a waste of time - it doesn't have to be, but it is. Secondly I have other priorities for my money. Thirdly I have had disagreeable experiences with TV companies, and don't want to channel my income to them. So, for reasons of my own, there is one action that the brethren would approve of. Or non-action, which is even better.

Radio is also unnecessary, because I prefer internet radio stations anyway. I doubt that it would be considered any more moral than the version that comes across the airwaves, but I don't intend to get into that discussion.

Brethren's houses also have a lot of bookshelves. Mine does too, but the spines are more variedly colourful than theirs. I had long since stopped getting the brethren's own publications, so they won't take up my valuable shelf space. Having said that, I would snap up an antique set of JND's writings if I saw one at a reasonable price, simply because they are the kind of thing I'd like to own. I'm sure they'd sit comfortably in a category with Berlin, Hofstadter, Penrose and Machiavelli among other thinkers.

Music would be another difference. There was often music in my parents' home, but only of the live variety. Now I have a soundtrack to my various activities, and I have to remind myself that I needn't worry about turning it off if the phone or the doorbell rings. That is nice, I must say.

There is no uniform row of vintage photographs of venerable gentleman, as would be obligatory. That won't be so obvious later, because I will have photos of family.

Other than that, I'm struggling to think what brethren might worry about in my house. I dare say I'll find out, as I can probably expect a visit from some at some point. Activities are another matter, of course, but I'll get on to those later.

What, Exactly, is "Settling In"?

I've been warned by numerous people that it would be very hard to move into my own home, alone. Some of those, of course, have an interest in my finding the world a harsh place, but some well-meaning people seem to think similarly.

Well, I'm keeping my stocks of trepidation high, but so far it's been quite pleasant. Probably being busy has a lot to do with that. By the time I got home from work today I had a plan of action, and got slightly more done than I planned. In my quick shop on Saturday, I got one ready meal to tide me over, and as I dined out with a friend yesterday evening, I still had that. Which meant that I didn't have to shop again today, but could get straight on.

The first step was to connect up the music system. That's not really a living room kind of item, as I got it for recording and stage work, so the works are all in flight cases. Still, it happily soothed me with assorted tunes from my iPod through the remainder of the evening.

Then came bread making. I do like my bread, and lunch is not the same without it. And armed with the family recipe, handed over at the last minute yesterday and scribbled on a jotter pad, I had a stab. Result, twelve bread rolls, which should keep me going into next week. They look OK, surprisingly, but tomorrow will tell. I may yet spit out doughy mouthfuls over my desk.

Then I fixed my main computer. It was running and connected to the world at large via broadband yesterday, but not what I'd call properly. Still isn't, actually, but it feels a little less minimalist now. No printer yet.

After that, I tackled the living room shelves. It was worrying me a bit that I couldn't fasten them to the wall at the top (as the walls aren't mine to drill), but a bit of lateral thinking solved several problems in one. I bought an extra item of furniture, a set of three drawers in the same finish. Obviously they are deeper than the shelves, and when positioned between the two tall bookcases and the whole set screwed together, the assembly feels very sturdy, and most unlikely to tip over. And - the bonus extra task of the evening - I set up my Mac Mini on top of the drawers, which are just the right height. All the electrical paraphenalia tucks underneath the bottom drawer, the Mini plus screen sit on the top, and the keyboard and mouse hide away in the top drawer until needed. Once I've connected the music side of things to the computer, it'll do me for now as an entertainment centre. Music streams from the main system upstairs, and DVDs etc are an option at any time, and it's all controllable via the remote which I never unpacked before.

What with making dinner, washing up, and catching up on messages and posting blog entries, I don't see the boredom coming on any time soon. Before long I'll have washing to do, too. And once the piles of books and so on are neatly on shelves, there's work to be seen to before my job disappears.

So far, so good. Coming soon: how I plan to be worldly.

Done That

I've never been so many days without posting since I started writing this blog.

There's a good reason for that: I've been occupied by moving. Having lived all my life in my parents' house (and, at my age, having begun to struggle to find excuses for why I do) it's been both exciting and daunting to set up a home. I have to say that it feels the right thing to do.

Actually moving all my possessions took longer than I expected, and the task wasn't made any easier by the uncomprehending sorrow at the other end. However, although it took a full week to do, for reasons of space, organisation, and lack of time in the evenings that were filled by people wanting to talk to me, finally last night I managed to sleep in my own bed in my own place.

Not that I slept all that well, I have to say, but that's only to be expected initially.

Now I have quite a lot of work ahead, as in most of the rooms I can barely see the floor for piles and boxes of assorted things that need a proper place to go. Large amounts of books, for one thing. I'm a bit torn how to prioritise. I would like to set up the bookcases, but then I would like to get some music playing for while I work ... and I can't afford to leave the kitchen for long because I need to eat, and come to that I will have to go shopping again for the things I couldn't get last time. And the office stuff is important, too, because the sooner I get going on alternative work, the safer I'll be if things change.

For today, I go to work as usual, and nobody has said that I'll have to stop, so for the immediate future I still have my previous income.

One of the many people who came to tell me I was making a big mistake leaving the brethren said that I'd get very bored living on my own. Just at the moment, I can't see it.

Collective Intelligence

I have had cause to wonder just how much the brethren's actions are deliberate and pre-meditated.

My situation, in which I am - to put it in a legal way - in breach of the agreed terms of brethren membership, is one which they are obliged to deal with. In times past, the course of action was well-defined: specific offences had known penalties, and once the facts were known, the case was essentially solved. Now, with the retrospective adjustment of the rules, the emphasis is more on the person and less on the offence. The question to ask is "what can be done to get this person happily back in line?"

So, as that is a tall order in my case, the methods and personnel shift around me. As I've said before, that's kind of unsettling.

My question is whether that is deliberate, a machiavellian ploy that somebody has decided is the most likely to result in success for those who wish me to stay. The cynical answer would be "yes", but it doesn't feel that way.

To digress a little, I have often found it helpful to think of the brethren group as a single organism. Looking at it that way, and ignoring the individuals, gives a clearer view of some of the actions. An organism's main aim is its own survival. It will seek to order its circumstances so as to thrive, it will modify its behaviour to suit the circumstances, and it will react if threatened. That may be rational, it may be instinctive, or it may be learned behaviour. Observation of the brethren over time will show this pragmatic adaptation to environment in action, and some find that very willingness to change somewhat disturbing.

In the same way that a hive of bees can be considered to be a single creature of more than usually separated components, so I think the brethren's actions make more sense seen as the result of collective intelligence rather than the masterplan of certain individuals. Obviously there are instructions from individuals, and the overall process is managed and guided, but in my opinion the more managed changes are the least successful. Where there are many individuals with a common aim, but free to act as they see best, that aim is more effectively reached. It's not unlike Adam Smith's "invisible hand".

By whatever means, the brethren seem to have hit on a very effective combination of authority and collective experimental method, with an unusually strong common focus. In that sense it isn't surprising that it remains successful.

And in my case?

I think there are many people who wish me to stay among the brethren, and they all have different ideas about how to accomplish that. If somebody is not effective, somebody else has a go. It's not sinister, it's not deliberately manipulative, it's just what happens when a group of people are trying to achieve the same thing. I think they're mistaken, but I'm quite touched by their efforts to do what they are sure is best for me.

How It Feels

Forgive me if this is self-absorbed.

I have this sense that things are shifting around me as fast or faster than I take action myself. Most obviously, the very fact of me stating my case in writing has stirred something up that I don't fully understand. The result for me is that the men who had been discussing my affairs with me haven't been seen for more than a week, and some are apparently answering questions themselves. Meanwhile, some old friends of mine have taken their place, and are going out of their way to make no difficulties at all. It seems almost as though I could continue as before with no more said if I chose, and it is only my insistence that is any reason at all to leave.

That is somehow quite unsettling. What is also painful in a way I wouldn't be without is that assorted friends have been to say their "goodbye for now"s, some from quite a long way away.

So I am feeling very unilateral and somewhat high-handed, however little justified that may be. Fortunately the various friends, while they don't agree either with my conclusions or my actions, understand why I feel it is necessary, and hope for the best on my behalf even as their training of years tells them the worst is likely.

What is worst is the actual moving. Although my family have accepted it when I've talked it through, they find it impossible to accept the physical reality. There is - I hate to say - an air of resentment that makes each box and item weigh twice as much. The atmosphere is thick with unwillingness. Today I have shifted to other tasks which are less obvious, simply because I can't bear it. There are practical jobs to do for others before I am not permitted to cross their doorsteps to finish off, and I am doing some of those.

I have been thinking that perhaps I will leave most things behind, and return later to collect them when there is nobody there.

But happily I can report that I turned up to my little house this evening in the dark of a rainstorm, and it felt like home already. In spite of having little furniture, no hot water, and no bed. So I think my first night will be comfortable when it comes.

Recursive Proof of Authority

This is not news to anyone who's watched the brethren for any length of time: the man at the top rarely says "you must listen to me, I'm the one who says what goes." No, it's all done with an elaborate system of codes and references.

It all depends on a method of extracting meaning from the bible called "types" - that is, that particular people and events should be read as referring specifically to something else directly relevant to the here and now. Brethren are so accustomed to this that they barely notice they're doing it. The modern meaning is so taken for granted that it is an effort to notice the original sense. And this carries through to many other things, so that a statement that can be loaded with meaning for brethren could be utterly meaningless to an outsider.

Some outsiders may have already noticed that.

So a long-standing way for the big chief to draw attention to his position and authority is to talk about the apostle Paul. This is always taken to refer to himself, but in a purely impersonal way, so that it is humble at the same time. Each reiteration of Paul's utter indispensability to God's plans, or component thereof, reinforces his own standing. And it is now very difficult for modern brethren to make any mental distinction between the two.

Then more recently, it has become very much the method of choice to directly boost the previous leaders. This of course works in the same way, with some added advantages. Firstly, the connection is not so ingrained, so the listeners or readers have to do some of the mental work themselves, which makes it feel more like their own conclusion. Secondly, there is of course considerably more freedom of reference in recent lives. But most importantly, it subtly puts the rest of the congregation in their place.

This is because each scrap of information about a previous leader is accompanied in the audience by a sense of guilt that they hadn't known or seen it before. So they redouble their efforts not to miss anything in the currrent leader.

To sum up, it's not really possible to understand the stuff brethren live on unless you've grown up with assumptions.

One Small Step for a Survivor

I suppose the real step forward was signing the agreement, but that feels abstract.

Sitting in the house where I'll be living is very concrete by comparison. OK so there's no furniture, so I have the choice of sitting on the floor, the kitchen worktop or the toilet, but here I am. The landlord seems a nice guy, so that's a good sign. It feels just a bit limiting that none of it is my own property, and consequently I can't change the few things I'd like to, but then restrictions are good for the soul.

Now I wish I'd brought paper and pen with me, as I could be measuring up to see what goes where. That shows how ignorant I am. As it is, I make an entry to mark the step forward, and move on. That's life.

Pause Postscript

Many of my blog entries have been made from my mobile phone.

It's a system that has many advantages once one develops the nimbleness of thumbs to operate a keyboard measured in millimeters, mainly because it is possible to add a post on a theme while the thought is fresh.

But a quirk of the phone or network has been known to cause part-delivery of messages, and it's been bad the last couple of days. I've only just noticed (and rewritten) today's entry, which was rudely truncated. I apologise to anybody who had a puzzling email that seemed to finish in midair. I must learn to save my entries so they don't get entirely lost when that happens.

Pause for Work

The pace of blog entry has slowed.

I have been learning about moving house, and the first lesson is that there is a lot to do. When you're going from a situation where everything is provided, there is even more to do, because you need to get the various needed things before you can move them. I thought I could live cheaply and simply, but even so there is a surprisingly long list of items that one must have to survive.

The kitchen comes first, because I believe that to live well you have to eat well. I have assorted equipment sitting in a pile. Now I need some books on cooking. An old man I once knew told me that anyone who could read, could cook, and I am about to test that.

But it's an odd feeling contemplating the immediate future. I have been considering how I will feel on closing the front door and finding myself properly alone. It's exciting, but not pleasant in every way. Fortunately I am inherently quite self-reliant, and happy to be so. Even so, I think it would be wise to make an immediate start on finding local friends and getting to know the neighbours, as it's not healthy being alone. A friend offered me very valuable advice along those lines last night, and I'm very grateful because it crystallised something I hadn't properly considered.

I'm quite old enough that I should have been through this before, but there are times when I still feel like a teenager pretending to be an adult. I'm not convinced that will ever pass.

Publicity Good or Bad

As will probably be obvious by now, I find quite a lot of value in making my thoughts public.

I am now finding there is a conflict that is bigger than I thought it would be. On the one hand, I like people to see what I've written (the ego finding an outlet from a shy person) and, strangely, others seem to like to read it. But I made a miscalculation in my estimate of the effect on my family and brethren friends.

There was never any doubt that my comments would be hurtful - they were bridge-burning comments, and intended to be so. However I took pains to avoid anything that would apply to any particular person. Apart from anything else, I can't think of anybody I would want to humiliate publicly in that way. So to me, it is all diffused criticism that nobody could take personally.

I wrote a while back that this approach is not possible, that brethren, whatever their own feelings about what goes on, will not be able to help seeing criticism as a personal slap in the face. So it proves, and I'm caught in the trap.

Last night was the hardest discussion. I finally spelt out to my parents that I am going, and soon, leaving no room for doubt. They don't understand, but they can accept it in spite of the bitterness, and I think they know that it is not a rejection of them. The biggest stumbling block remains this blog. Clearly they do take it personally, and it is equally clear that everybody I've had anything to do with will take whatever I say as a pointed analysis of their personal deficiencies in that area. What's more, unless I keep tight control, some people seem to think it's a good idea to splash my comments as widely as possible.

So anything I write in public will, unintentionally, be a wound to people I care about. I could call it their problem, not mine, but once I know it's happening, I am responsible.

At which point I have to ask myself "Is it worth the price?"