This is going to be fun. In the next few articles, I'm going to break down the Seven Deadly 'Sins', each in turn. In case you didn't know, or indeed had never before heard of the seven deadly sins, they are basically a classification of seven 'vices', stated in early Christian writings, as a way to deliver followers from 'temptation' away from the virtues the sins are apparently opposing. Any yielding to a deadly sin is seen as destroying the life of grace, and carries with it the punishment or threat of eternal damnation.

Today, I start with 'Lust'. Now, the dictionary defines 'Lust' as an intense sexual desire or appetite. Is 'intense sexual desire' a bad thing? The Bible and its many versions of preachers would seem to think so. They seem to believe that the act of sex itself is a physical, carnal, animal act of misuse of the flesh, that it's only function should be to procreate. But the human body tells a different story…

For starters, did you know that its women, not men, who have an organ made solely for sexual pleasure? The clitoris. The clitoris actually comes from the same tissue that develops into the glans of the male penis. It has twice the number of nerve endings as the penis and, because it is so much smaller, it is ultra sensitive.

Women's orgasms that can last minutes, or much longer, compared to a man's, which can be over in seconds. Men have one orgasm and then lose their arousal. Women can have orgasm after orgasm - and many different kinds, too. Doesn't it makes sense, then, that women would want to enjoy sex as much as possible on a recreational basis, as well as just on a procreational level, rare as that would likely be?

As for men - the real men - it's no secret that we love sex, even if the act itself is not as intense as it is for women. For a man that truly loves women, a man who completely gets off on seeing his women enjoy themselves in bed, who isn't satisfied until he's enjoyed the look of rapture on her face as he makes her orgasm again and again - merely getting in and getting the job done is not enough; that would not be a true fulfilment or expression of his masculine sex. (And it's certainly not fun for the woman, too).

Now, all this is fine. BUT, the dictionary also defines 'Lust' as uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness. Illicit sexual desire. Lecherous. Hmm… With definitions such as these, one can only reason that 'lusting' in this manner pertains to those who are then committing adultery.

Indeed, according to this article over at 'Our Cheating Ways' on infidelity, writer, Peggy Vaughan, states in her book, "The Monogamy Myth", that recent statistics suggest that 40% of women (and that number is increasing) and 60% of men at some point indulge in extramarital affairs.

The reasons? There are a couple. But before I explain, you may recall my comments on the role, 'value' plays in relationships from my articles, Is It Right To Play The Field?, Is It Shallow To Go For Looks? and Oysters And Pearls. They're well worth a read. But, in a nutshell, every human has an objective value, determined by his values and the measure thereof. It's in a human's best interests to be always working to increase his value.

And because value attracts equal value, a man can only attract and keep a woman of equal value herself - and vice versa, of course. For this reason if a partner in a relationship raises their value, or the value of their partner drops for whatever reason, it is only natural that they will want to seek out someone of like value. So with that said, what attributes are the 'adulterers' seeking when they stray?

Concerning 'lust' and sexual desire, the two main, possible reasons for infidelity are genetic and spiritual. For a man, a diminishing of beauty on the part his partner (and subsequent lowering in physical value), can trigger his in-built need to pursue other, beautiful, healthy females (the embodiment of good genes) in a bid to spread his seed further and ensure the continuing of his line into further generations.

For a woman, a lack, or the receding of masculine traits in her man such as social status, leadership, dominance and ambition personify a male no longer equipped to protect her and the offspring, putting their survival at risk, and can likewise spur her to search for another male of like value, equal to the task.

For both the male and the female, on the spiritual level, referring to what we discussed earlier - men and women both love sex on a recreational level, too. Good sex feels good. And for someone that is good at it, that is a big tick in the box on their part - and a contribution to his overall value.

Sexual prowess equals higher value. Unfulfilled sexual desires are a big void in the value of the frigid/impotent partner. Now observe the restrictiveness and therefore vulnerability of the marriage contract - is it any wonder why, with the continuing sexual revolution, encouragement of sexual expression and the sexual liberation of women, that divorce rates are so high?

But the seven sins were highlighted to correspond with their opposing virtues, with 'Chastity' being the virtue in this case. And of course, chastity means abstinence from sex altogether. Further research, however, teaches us that the 'lust' that features on the Seven Deadly Sin list is usually thought of as involving obsessive or excessive thoughts or desires of a sexual nature.

So, then, can we take the Deadly Sin of lust to mean an overindulgence of sex, beyond what's 'required' - i.e., for any reason other than procreation? I'll tell you what overindulgence is: prostitutes, excessive masturbation, hours spent watching porn - among others. Sexual or sociological crimes such as bestiality, paedophilia, rape, and incest can be linked with a downward spiral into a lonely, sociopathic life fuelled by unfulfilled, natural, human lusts and desires - a cornerstone of a high value life. As an aside, it's a well know fact that some of our most ravenous bedfellows are those of a sexually-repressed, religious background.

The fact is, sex - good sex - is a wonderful, spiritual act - a celebration of two or more (or less) person's mutually respected value of each other. A good life is about balance. The ultimate existence of a human is that of a humanpreneur, i.e., one who strives to grow himself mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually. Sex isn't just a physical act. Those who say that just aren't doing it correctly! The body is merely the vehicle that allows us to enjoy it. The more we take care of the body, the longer we live.

Sexual nerve endings erupt with delight at direct stimulation, but women can orgasm without even being touched, using only the power of the human mind. Real sex is not without emotion, either. To say that sex is a base act is ignorant and despicable. As I said , good sex comes from two or more people celebrating each other's mutually-respected value for each other. Emotions abound; there's no room for the base, here.

All this makes for a spiritual experience that makes the soul soar as if riding a rollercoaster, driving a car fast, listening to an emotive song or savouring sweet sherbet. The continual drive for human improvement and the practise of good sex - coupled with the balanced lusting thereof - makes for an increase in personal value, which results in the attraction of higher value, like partners.

This process negates any desire for an individual to regress into a life of internet porn marathons, trench coat-flashing and stalking. Humanpreneurship - equals - higher human value - equals - attraction of equally-valued humans - equals - good sex - equals - desireless of abnormal sexual activities - equals - balance - equals - sexual fulfilment - equals - happier human race. Simple!

Finally, 'Lust', in the context of the Seven Deadly Sins, also pertains to any form of desire or overindulgence, not necessarily of a sexual nature. The idea is that to desire more into one's life, of a material nature, is sacrilege. We'll go deeper into this in other 'Sins', but my retort to this is the same: balanced lusting and desire is fine, and mandatory for the formulation of an idea of what to aim for. The attainment of (again, which will be discussed in upcoming articles) said desires, is effected by action - and, therefore, fully deserved.

In conclusion, recreational sex is a great thing. The lusting of it is natural and necessitates the realisation of the actual act. Nothing just happens - it is attracted into your life because of the person you are; any action effected by thought-out, conscious action. Excessive, irrational lusting makes for an unbalanced, low value life, which in turn results in low value experiences. The downward spiral continues until the volitional redirection toward a high value life.

Someone once said that if you want your dreams to come true, you have to wake up. Dream well, my friend, but not for too long.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

A few years ago, when at a network marketing seminar, one of the speakers, Chris Mason-Paull, I believe – a successful MLM business owner – put forth a people-sorting analogy that has remained with me ever since. It illustrated how, when building a business built on people, the onus is on you to 'go through as many oysters' as you can, as quick as you can, in order to find the ones with the 'pearls', quicker.

It was a great analogy, and it stuck with me, albeit unconsciously. It wasn't until years later that it resurfaced when I was philosophising upon relationships, and the art of finding the right person to settle down with. I reworked the oysters and pearls 'concept' into my own theory. I've mentioned it before, but for the sake of this article, I will explain it once again. My aim of this discourse is to go further into depth. First, here's my theory…

You see, when it comes to relationships, there are two kinds of people in this world: 'weepers' and 'seekers'. Now, before I explain that, let's first pretend that all the millions of potential partners in this world are oysters. And that only a few of them contain a pearl.

Firstly, what the 'weepers' do is they grab the first oyster that comes their way and they open it up, hoping it contains a pearl, and, realising it doesn't, they close the oyster, and say, "Oh well, if I love it and caress it, and do everything I can for it, then surely, a pearl will appear". So they kiss it, caress it, put it on a pedestal, do everything for it, and then open it again, hoping a pearl has appeared. But still no pearl.

So they close it again, they kiss it, caress it, put it on a pedestal, do everything for it, and then open it, once again hoping a pearl has appeared. Still no pearl. Eventually, the oyster gets bored from all the pressure and waiting around, and the weeper ends up losing the oyster, and then they cry, lamenting that they hate oysters, that they’re all the same and how they'll never find the right oyster for them. With me?

Now, the 'seekers', they understand that there are millions of oysters out there, they realise that only a few contain a pearl, and they reason that, by logic, they'll have to go through a lot of oysters before they find one with a pearl. So they find an oyster, have some fun, realise there’s no pearl, put it down again, and move on to the next oyster. Have some fun, open it up, realise there’s no pearl, put it down, then move on to the next oyster. But they know that with each oyster they find that doesn’t contain a pearl, it brings them closer to one that does.

And with each oyster they find, they learn more about life, and they become better at understanding oysters, so that they can ultimately spend less and less time with each oyster they find before realising it doesn't contain a pearl. And when they do eventually find an oyster with a pearl, they'll know exactly what to do to keep hold of it. I’m a seeker. My question to you is, are you a weeper or a seeker?

My main reason for my writing this article is that, at times, even after explaining my excellent theory, some people will still hit me with the same question, "What if you find the oyster with a pearl, now, before having gone through many oysters?" Their point, when they ask me this, is that could I really be as harsh as to turn away someone that could potentially be right for me - the love of my life - if I wasn't supposedly, ready?

But the art of choosing the right person involves a lot more than the heart. If you have your values set, you'll naturally fall in love with someone that lives by those same values. If you've fallen in love with someone whose values are conflicting with your own, you need to examine your values.

I've gone into this before in my article, "Is It Right To Play The Field". But, I'd like to be a little more specific by breaking it down, further. So, in answering the question of why I wouldn't settle for a pearl if I found one early, allow me to sum it up in the following points…

1) Every human has a value and he should spend his life constantly increasing his value, because the higher his value, the better value he attracts into his life. This is what it means to be a humanpreneur.

2) I love women. I love the way they walk; I love the way they talk; I love the way they laugh; I love the way they smell; I love the way they feel; I love the way they taste. I love their anatomy; I love that I'm physically stronger than they are; I love that they expect me to lead and to be dominant and I embrace their femininity - I just love women. And in the same way that I love to travel, I want to go to as many places on earth as possible; in the same way that I love food, I want to taste as many different dishes as I can; in the same way that I love adventure, I want to try as many crazy things as I am able - so I want to experience as many different women as I can before I settle with one, and…

3) Finally, because value attracts value, the more I increase my value in life, the higher value woman I'll always want and naturally attract. And the more you increase your value, conversely, the fewer oysters you find with pearls in, since you become more discriminating in your search for that extra special oyster - which is therefore harder to find. But when I'm nearer the man I am striving to become, and I know exactly what I want in a woman, I'll be ready to attract her and keep her for good.

As I said, these points are based on my own situation, so point number two is subjective. But, points one and three should be objective laws to live by. For you, you may find someone like yourself early on, someone who is also a humanpreneur, striving to increase their value. It may turn out you are both on the same path, you are compatible, and therefore can grow together.

Whatever you do, put yourself, first. The partner you attract will only be as 'quality' as you. Make yourself 'top quality'. Remember my motto, 'Mecum et incipio et finio', translated from Latin to, 'I both begin and end with myself'. Words to live by.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

As a man who appreciates beautiful women, my oft-wandering eye is regularly met with disapproval and remarks such as "She's not a piece of meat!" or "There's more to a woman than her looks!" or "She's probably a bitch!", such is society's general perception of physically attractive women.

The average spectator's first reaction to any display of visual desire for something - human (sexual), material or natural (not so much) - is always one of haughty disapproval coupled with a self-righteous, indiscriminate labelling of the 'looker' as nonspiritual, superficial, heartless and 'shallow'. But what does it mean to be shallow? A dictionary definition enlightens, as usual:

Lacking depth of intellect, emotion, or knowledge.

So to prejudge someone as being shallow in light of an admirer's approval of someone for their good looks is to assume that this is where the qualifying of a potential partner stops. As the definition states, to qualify someone based solely on their looks is to be indifferent toward that person’s personality, the looks being enough to satisfy one’s evident lack of intellectual depth and emotion. To the humanpreneur, though, having good looks is merely a foot in a door - a big foot in the door for an attractive woman, and a minor step for a good looking man.

When it comes to physical beauty, men and women are similar in that they are attracted to it, but that's where the similarities end. If a woman is physically attractive, it's a big plus in the eyes of admiring men. Further, interestingly, generally, a woman's self confidence is directly proportionate to her looks. The more beautiful the woman, the more life-smart she is likely to be.

Women of beauty, from an early age, have had a lot of attention growing up which they quickly build upon and turn into self-awareness, self confidence and guile. With good looking men, there is no such correlation. Handsome men are not as sought after professionally or emotionally as beautiful women. For men, a strong, dominant, ambitious personality, along with humour, social intuition, wealth, good health and good social value - are more vital characteristics for life progression and the attracting of women.

For an attractive man, when he approaches an attractive woman, his good looks are merely a foot in the door and that's it. If the man hasn't got the chops to back it up, he's toast - and the more beautiful the woman, the quicker he'll likely fry, since her value will likely be superior to his. Value attracts equal value, so a high value male will likely attract equally high value females.

And, interestingly, since beautiful, feminine looks are important as far as men's idea of their ideal women are concerned (for evolutionary reasons of their likelihood of bearing beautiful, healthy offspring), and since women of beauty generally 'have their shit together', a man of high value will most likely be seen with a beautiful woman/women. So the level of beauty of a man's female partner is a good barometer of his self confidence and value.

Conversely, when a good looking man has a female partner whom isn't particularly attractive, he is labelled as not being shallow - the ugliness of a woman serving as as an indicator of the level of a man's genuinity: the uglier the woman, the more genuine the man is perceived to be. Meaning that he must actually be with the woman because of her personality, since she is ugly enough not to be attractive to men.

But this would be to assume that he was in fact attracted to her personality. Who's to say he is not with her for another reason entirely? Such is the prejudice of the ignorant. The truth is that the man with the unattractive partner is most probably unconfident, or has low self esteem.

Some men will often say they are not attracted to overly attractive girls - often referring to them as 'Barbie girls' - as a defence and unwitting admission that they are not high value enough for these girls and, in fact, are intimidated both by them AND the attainment of higher value. They settle for an average, unattractive girl, and hence concede - lying to themselves - that the beauty and brilliance out there that they desire deep down is for 'the lucky few' and not for them.

Men and women tick boxes when sizing up potential partners, whether they know it or not. Looks are generally top of the list for men - including me - when qualifying women. I mean, in a crowded room - and with limited time - a woman's obvious good looks allow me to immediately tick the first box before then moving on to the next criterion.

Next on the list of what men look for are things like age (a man's genes have more chance of replicating with a younger, fitter woman), hip-to-waste ratio, femininity, among others. Women place leadership and social status top, so she - and any potential offspring - will be adequately protected. This is why you can find ugly men with beautiful women. Thus answering that age old question, "What is she doing with him?"

The more boxes someone ticks, the higher their value. Value attracts equal value. A beautiful woman climbs into the passenger seat of a man's expensive sports car - is she after his money? Is he after her looks? Of course, he is after her looks. But as long as he is a humanpreneur, he'll be with her for more than just her good looks.

The expensive sports car is a symbol of the man's wealth and a reflection of his likely high social position and with it signals to the woman his probable ability to provide for a potential family and therefore represents high value to the woman. That's why the woman can be found getting into the sports car - unless she is a golddigger, of course. Similarly, an ambitious man that is at the early stages of his path to success, striving to tick his boxes, can be of equally high quality, since he's on his way. This, too, is attractive to women.

In conclusion, then - yes, it is shallow if looks are your only criterion in assessing your potential intimate partners. But it is also an admission of low value. I've said it many times - VALUE ATTRACTS VALUE. Build your value, and attract what you then deserve. Because there really is more to looks. If you're willing to look.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

As a man who does, my answer is often met with disapproval when asked why I haven't got - or am not ready for - a permanent girlfriend. Society has been taught that there is one person for each of us. It has also taught us that if you are too discriminating in your quest for that right one, you're bad; their favouring a more 'choose the first one that comes along' approach over that of the 'slutty', going through the numbers approach, apparent reason enough for their 'moral' superiority.

But to accept the first one that comes along as your ideal permanent partner is akin to digging your hand into a bucket of pegs and pulling out a random one to fill an unknown hole. You are the unknown hole; the peg is the chosen life partner.

Yep, it's true that most people don't even know themselves before settling down with the first random partner that comes along. People that live this way generally will concede that they are not suited for each other only after having wasted a year or two of their lives trying to fill a hole they don't even know. So to speak. Before then moving on to the next random partner.

Speaking of 'holes', those that are more selective in their approach to choosing intimate partners are accused of living a life whereby 'any hole's a goal.' And some are. But some are not. Some, like me, are polyamorous. I have a theory about this. I call it my 'Oysters And Pearls' theory. Read on…

You see, when it comes to relationships, there are two kinds of people in this world: 'weepers' and 'seekers'. Now, before I explain that, let's first pretend that all the millions of potential partners in this world are oysters. And that only a few of them contain a pearl.

Firstly, what the 'weepers' do is they grab the first oyster that comes their way and they open it up, hoping it contains a pearl, and, realising it doesn't, they close the oyster, and say, "Oh well, if I love it and caress it, and do everything I can for it, then surely, a pearl will appear". So they kiss it, caress it, put it on a pedestal, do everything for it, and then open it again, hoping a pearl has appeared. But still no pearl.

So they close it again, they kiss it, caress it, put it on a pedestal, do everything for it, and then open it, once again hoping a pearl has appeared. Still no pearl. Eventually, the oyster gets bored from all the pressure and waiting around, and the weeper ends up losing the oyster, and then they cry, lamenting that they hate oysters, that they’re all the same and how they'll never find the right oyster for them. With me?

Now, the 'seekers', they understand that there are millions of oysters out there, they realise that only a few contain a pearl, and they reason that, by logic, they'll have to go through a lot of oysters before they find one with a pearl. So they find an oyster, have some fun, realise there’s no pearl, put it down again, and move on to the next oyster. Have some fun, open it up, realise there’s no pearl, put it down, then move on to the next oyster. But they know that with each oyster they find that doesn’t contain a pearl, it brings them closer to one that does.

And with each oyster they find, they learn more about life, and they become better at understanding oysters, so that they can ultimately spend less and less time with each oyster they find before realising it doesn't contain a pearl. And when they do eventually find an oyster with a pearl, they'll know exactly what to do to keep hold of it. I’m a seeker. My question to you is, are you a weeper or a seeker?

The thing about relationships - on ANY level, be it intimate, business or friendship - is that value attracts equal value. You cannot attract lovers, wealth, business partners or friends of a higher value that you currently hold. I can testify to this. I have had people enter my life - business people, women, and friends, who then promptly left, when realising I was too low value for them. And rightly so, too.

My life purpose is to travel the world with a laptop under my arm, guitar on my back, and a surfboard on the roof rack, living the playboy lifestyle, immersing myself in the cultures, languages, religions, beliefs, histories, philosophies, cuisines, fashions, music, art, writings, cities and beaches of the world.

I will, over the next five to ten years, cover the entire globe, soaking it all up, developing my own philosophy, and becoming the man whose image is cemented in my mind. I see this world and the way people are, and it angers me. I want to be the man - along with those that join me along the way - that steers it in the right direction. Toward a destination for the betterment of the human race.

I won't plug-in to the system like the rest of society; I despise the system, everything it creates, and the sheep it breeds. I want to ultimately replace the system with a much more free way of living.

At thirty five to forty years old, when I settle down a wise man, with the right woman, and a beautiful family, somewhere exotic and simple, somewhere that has grabbed me on my travels, somewhere hot, on a white beach, with waves fit for surfing, with a lovely community - not too far from the city, will my life's work will truly begin, raising amazing kids to continue from where I will someday leave off…

And in response to this, people invariably comment, "What if you meet the 'right one' now? Noone can know when they will meet them." Well, actually, you can. At least, I can. And I can tell you, when I meet the woman I'm to spend the rest of my life with, it'll be because I'm good and ready - and not a moment sooner. But how can I be so sure?

Well, I'm a long way from being the man I want to be. My value right now pales significantly in comparison to the value I'll hold by the time I settle down at thirty five to forty years old. But my value is increasing daily, and by the time I'm ready to settle, it'll be because I have reached that value, and ready to move on to the next phase of my life, with the right person.

So anyone I attract into my life now, be it lover, business partner, friend, etc - will likely be of equal value to me. And as I grow, and my value surpasses theirs, I'll have to let them go, since they won't be able to help me grow AND they won't be able to help me build what I want to build.

It sounds harsh, but to live a life of an open door, where anyone of any arbitrary value can wander in and sit in your chair, is akin to swimming in a sewer open-mouthed. You're doing yourself no favours. Respect yourself, your goals, your path, and, ultimately, the value which you are aiming to hold.

To live a life where you attract people of equal value, keeping only those that are equal, is to live a life of honesty, integrity, respect and passion. It's perfectly human to strive for greater value, and for people of equally great value. This is what being a humanpreneur is all about. And for me, when I'm ready to settle down with 'Ms Right', it'll be when I am of super-high value, with a woman of equally high value whom, like me, is always aiming to increase her value further.

So how many oysters did you go through before settling for your current partner? One or two? And is there a chance that one can find their pearl-laden oyster so early on? Is it possible to find someone on the same path as themselves after opening only a handful of oysters? Of course. That's called luck. In the same way that you could roll a one hundred-sided die, and roll a one hundred on your first roll, so you could find your life partner so soon.

Everyone - at least most people - start in the shallow end, where the demands are modest, the expectations are small, and the value is low. The shallow end is full of the small fish, and, undeniably, there is a chance you could encounter another fish that's swimming for the deep end. It's small, but it's still a chance.

But to live your life in the shallow end, hoping you'll bump into another, like, fish of similar ambitions, is to concede low value, and with it, the repelling of someone that is swimming for the deep end. Instead, you'd just end up attracting one dream-less, low value fish after another. And the shallow end is full of them. To truly attract a fish swimming for the deep end, you have to be swimming for the deep end, yourself. Quite simply, value attracts value.

Fish analogies aside, you may think I'm I promoting a life of random, non-stop bedpost-knotching. No, sex should be a celebration of value for - and between - two or more (or just yourself) people; it should be a respect for each other's value or values.

The man that sleeps with prostitutes and the woman who constantly gets beaten by her partners - are both examples of a person who values themselves very cheaply, and therefore attracts equal value partners into their lives. Things can go two ways, here. They can maintain the same value for themselves (or lower), and continue their life of self-defilement. Or they can choose to raise their value, and hence climb out of their pit of poison and into a loftier view, thus attracting like, higher value partners.

Remember, one plus one equals two. It's not a half plus a half equals one. The 'two become one' romantic ideology is fine if you want to cut yourself in two. Be my guest. But believe me, rather be climbing a mountain alone, than shivering in a cave with a lover. Atop the mountain is where the really good 'uns are. It's pretty good fun climbing up, too.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is, it's good to sleep around. Go oyster-hunting, my friend. Find your pearl. If nothing else, it's just good fun.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

You've no doubt heard the term, "Choose your friends wisely". But do you actually do that? Where did you meet your current friends? Maybe it was at your place of work, a previous job, or even at school. Sometimes your best friendships can be the ones you've had the longest.

But 'longest' doesn't always mean 'best' - not to be confused with another popular subject. Imagine the person you were at school. Remember what you wanted to be - your goals, dreams, desires. The music you liked, your hobbies and your ambitions all defined whom you were.

At school, I was always a drifter. I remember when I started playing guitar, at thirteen years old. I befriended - and started to hang around with a bunch of guys who also played the guitar and were into the same kind of music as me: rock. We all had the long hair and used to wear the black jeans and the token gothic T-shirts symbolising our hate for the world. And for a while, that was who I was.

Then I realised I'd had enough of that phase, and my identity changed. I stopped spending time with that group of friends and started spending more time with other friends. This happened a few times throughout school, college, early jobs and deep into my adult life - constantly changing identity and swapping-out friends to fit accordingly.

The point is, up until the time where you realise you can actually make your own decisions in life, your friendships are based more on proximity and practicality than compatibility and similarity of purpose and goals.

Is it a good thing to change your identity? Yes it is, if you need to. When you realise who you are, where you are going in life, and how your identity is defined by it, you may be happy with that realisation, or not. You may realise that, actually, what you want in your life is completely different to what you first thought.

And when this happens, you'll discern that the person you are - your identity - is not congruent with your goals. So you then have to change your self, and mould your character into the person that is going to ultimately achieve the goals you want in the pursual of your purpose.

It's exciting stuff. I went through many identity changes until, at twenty-nine, I eventually discovered what I wanted to do with my life after opening many doors. That's twenty-nine years old. Not sixteen. Thirteen years after choosing my A Level courses at college which, looking back now, are completely incongruent with my purpose.

Anyway, to get back to the point of this article, the person you are now may be vastly different from the person you were at school. The same goes for your school friends. So if you are still close friends with your school friends - and by 'close', I mean you spend time with each other every week - have you both really changed since school?

And maybe you both have changed, and you've followed the exact same path in life, toward the same ultimate goal. Or maybe you both haven't changed, and you are both still on the same exact path that you were both on at school.

Either way, this is called coincidence, or influence. To explain, let's use a fictitious example. At school, you were best friends with someone. One day, you decide you want to become a professional tennis player. It becomes your purpose in life. You practise and play at every opportunity you get.

And your best friend also makes that same decision, playing tennis with a view to becoming a professional. Now, did your friend also decide to become a professional tennis player - as influenced by you (which is fine if that's what they really wanted to do)? Or was it just a coincidence that they started to play, too.

Either way, you both decided to become a professional tennis player, and hence your purpose is the same. Your friendship is compatible and beneficial to each of your purposes, since they are exactly the same.

But let's say that after you decided to become a professional tennis player, at school, your friend realised that he wanted to be something different in life. One of two things can happen. You can go your separate ways, since the time you once used to spend together is now taken-up with the pursual of your respective purposes (likewise, the time you do spend together is strained, since it's harder to relate to one another with your both now having different and incompatible goals.)

Or, you may still stay best friends. This may be a good thing or a bad thing. It really depends on how much time you spend together and how that time is spent. The question is, is it beneficial to your own purpose and life by keeping a friendship going just for the sake of longevity, if it is taking your energy away from your actual desired goals?

I have ultimately, unabashedly chosen my current friends based on the value they offer me and my purpose. They fit. That's honouring them, since it confirms they have values that I hold high. I have had many friends fallen by the wayside - some that were close. To have stayed friends with them would have been lying to them and to myself. That would be disrespecting myself and my purpose in life. I don't have time for that. Life's too precious.

Take a look at your friends. Would you swap any of them out, if you could? Yes? So what's stopping you? To stay friends with someone just because you've known each other for a long time is criminal. It's fake. It's lying to yourself, and it's lying to your friend. It's completely disrespecting your existence and purpose.

And that's just not being a humanpreneur.

Time for a clearout, maybe..?

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens