Today, we continue our in depth breakdown of the Seven Deadly Sins with an analysis of the Sin, 'Gluttony'. Once again, so I can be sure we're all singing from the same hymn sheet, let's look at the dictionary definition of 'Gluttony': excessive eating and drinking. Simple.

But how does one define excessive? Again, the dictionary tells us it means: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree. So, then, gluttony seems to denote the act of eating or drinking more than one needs to survive, since anything more, by this definition, is unnecessary.

Every vice in the Seven Deadly Sin list is given a corresponding virtue to live by. In the case of 'gluttony', its opposing virtue is 'temperance', which means accepting the natural limits of pleasures in a bid to preserve the natural balance. Resonating with the previous paragraph, by eating more than your body actually needs - into the realm of pleasure - is apparently enough to incur punishment of holy proportions.

Further research into the sin of 'gluttony' tells us that it is seen as an overindulgence and over-consumption of anything to the point of waste. So, apparently, consuming more than you need is 'waste'. A more in depth look tells us that, in Christian circles, the 'waste' tag comes from the mindset of "if you're eating more than you need, you're withholding it from the needy."

Citing an article on the sin that is gluttony over at Wikipedia, where the contributor had obviously done their homework, was the following: "Depending on the culture, it can be seen as either a vice or a sign of status. Where food is relatively scarce, being able to eat well might be something to take pride in (although this can also result in a moral backlash when confronted with the reality of those less fortunate). Where food is routinely plentiful, it may be considered a sign of self control to resist the temptation to over-indulge."

This is totally subjective. So, then, if you’re doing well for yourself in a poor community, you're not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your hard work too much, because it's not fair on the less 'fortunate'. Okay, so this means that those that are 'fortunate' enough to be able to enjoy a good meal, must have received their fortune in a cookie at the Chinese takeaway, since the advocates of this philosophy seem oblivious to the fact that fortune is created by action.

And if you're doing well for yourself, and live in a wealthy neighbourhood, (i.e., you decided you actually wanted to respect your existence as a human being and fulfil your massive potential by getting off your backside and creating something) to, again, enjoy the table of plenty before you after a smart day's work - is apparently over-indulging! Fascinating stuff.

I sometimes find myself completely bemused that today, still, in the twenty first century, my fellow humans are lazily refusing to understand how those that are living the life they read about in magazines are achieving it. They deny that the man that drives the Ferrari, who steps out in beautiful, bespoke cloth, and into the exclusive restaurant to enjoy a five course meal - actually created it all himself.

Those that truly enjoy life, respect their existence as a human being, and honour the amazing potential that goes with it - that live as a humanpreneur - choose not to over-indulge in food or drink, anyway. If they were to over-eat or over-drink, how long do you think these rational life-lovers would keep destroying their cells and clogging their arteries for before realising that they were destroying the very vehicle that allows them to live?

It's not gluttony, my friend, that will destroy our race: It's the existing systems that allow the power-seekers to legally extract a portion of the producers' hard-earned income to appease everyone else with the creation of support systems for complete strangers - including those that wouldn't recognise a hard day's work if it came over and fixed their broken boiler for them. This system is diluting the potential brilliance of our race.

It's stifling the humanpreneurs, and feeding the lazy. A system like this effects the depletion of the earth's resources, since they are being used quicker than they are being produced - the balance is out. Were humans left to be free, to produce, to sell, to charge what they wished for the product of their humanpreneurialism, with every man as an end in himself - only the best would survive, leaving plenty of room and resources for those that actually wanted to 'live'.

Until then, we live in a timebomb, awaiting the discovery of another planet to relocate to before we run out of resources here on earth. Either that, or we derail the system in favour of one that actually befits the human race. Hmmm… Now there's a thought.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

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

Faith is an emotion that has long been recognised as a pillar supporting a positive outlook on life. Its association with religion aside, the word is synonymous with hope, goal-setting and achievement. But I wonder, is it really enough to simply have 'faith'?

Sure, faith alone won't make all your dreams come true. You don't have to be an atheist to realise that action is what separates conception and realisation. But I declare that it really goes deeper than a mere coalition of faith and action. In fact, I know this to be so. Let's take a look at a dictionary definition of the word, 'faith':

- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing;

- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Let's discuss the first part of the definition: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Now, imagine someone in your life whom you know inside-out, someone you don't even have to question, you know them so well. You respect their values, and ever since you've known them, you've never known them to lie. They've proven themselves to be honest.

With that said, then, when dealing with this person, is faith really needed, since they speak the truth? Think about it, if you know something or someone to be true, 'faith' is, therefore, by definition, redundant. Faith assumes that there is an element of doubt in the person or thing. If you know something or someone to be true, it stands to reason that there is therefore no chance that any contradiction could exist. It is not faith, but a knowing, a certainty about this person, based upon your discriminate judgement of them, that leaves no need of faith.

Now let's study the second part of the definition: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. The truth is, it could only be a belief if it didn't rest on logical proof. I remember a few years ago, in my network marketing days, I was at a party thrown by one of the pace-setters in the company I was in - Chris Mason-Paull. He was a successful, wealthy man and lived in a beautiful, big house with a pool, etc, etc. Very nice, indeed.

At one point in the evening, we were in a conversation with a Christian man about religious beliefs. Chris said something that remained with me ever since, because it was, quite simply, logical. He said, "If you have to believe in something, then there is a chance that it doesn't exist". If there is no logical proof of something, then there is a chance that it doesn't exist. This goes for religion, the supernatural, creation, etc. Not to get into a deep monologue on the illogic of religion, here, but let me explain my point.

Surely, then, it makes sense to live by objective principles? Yes, it does! As humans, we can only be sure of having five senses: sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. We can also be sure that we are limited in the time we have to live. As humans, we are unique in the animal kingdom in possessing a reasoning mind. With all this considered, then, doesn't it make sense to spend one's life in the constant improvement of the power of these five senses AND of the mind?

To spend any time in the believing of that which hasn't even been proven to exist is a waste of a life. As humans, we have so much potential. We are the greatest race that has ever graced this planet. Our existence here, today, is testament to that. We have achieved some astounding things, and it's exciting to think about what else we will achieve. But it will only be by playing to one's strengths that the fulfilment of one's human potential will be realised.

Of some things in life, though, there is no proof for, yet there exist common beliefs for based upon logic. The best example I can think of is taken from a line by Russell Crowe's character in the film, 'A Beautiful Mind'. He said something like he "didn't know if the universe is never-ending or not, but he believed it to be".

Some things in life will be proved by science, logic and reason. Some, such as religion, will not and cannot. As a race, our survival and advancement lies in the hands of those that are striving to grow themselves using that which has taken us from swinging from the trees, to building skyscrapers. I can tell you that in those skyscrapers, you definitely won't find suited executives holding hands in circles chanting mantras and spells.

Time is short. Respect your existence as a human being, play to your strengths, and live in a constant state of improvement. You have everything you need - it's what got you here in the first place. It's time to take it - and you - further.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

Today, in the UK at least, it's Easter Sunday. And here, we have laws that prevent shops of a certain size trading on this day. Now, if you've spent any amount of time on this site, you can probably already guess my answer to the headline question. The answer is 'yes'. What? Just kidding. The answer is a defiant 'NO' - we definitely do not need Easter Sunday trading laws - or any trading laws, for that matter.

The law, called the Sunday Trading Act 1994 states that shops over 280 square metres or 3,000 square feet big are permitted only to open for six continual hours between 10am and 6pm on a Sunday, and not at all on Easter Sunday. In researching this article, I couldn't find any objective reason as to why the law had been passed. The best I could find were generalities such as, "It's a time for families" or "It's for social and religious reasons."

On the BBC news site, I found a story from the 15th April 2006, titled: "MP Opposes Easter Sunday Shopping." At the time, talks were taking place to extend Sunday trading times, as supermarkets had requested the right to open on Easter Sundays AND to stay open for three extra hours on regular Sundays. A cross-party panel, including the said South East Cornwall MP, a Mr Colin Breed, was opposed to such plans, with their 'reason' being, again, "social and religious." They didn't go into detail.

Colin Breed had this to say, "I don't think they [the supermarkets] should be trying to steam-roller over every single aspect of our lives and we don't want them to squeeze out any more of the smaller shops. I see this campaign by the supermarkets to increase, yet again, their trading hours on a Sunday, as just a further erosion. They just want to get to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, no matter what the religious holidays are."

There are so many points wrong about this statement that I almost don't know where to start. Firstly, how are the supermarkets 'steam-rollering' over our lives? I feel just fine, thanks, Colin! Maybe where he lives, supermarkets knock at your door and force you by gunpoint to visit their store? No.

Colin, in keeping with his socialist beliefs, is ignorant as to how supermarkets earn their money. Here's how it works: They stock a product that consumers have shown they want, the consumers agree the price is right, and then they buy it. If they didn't think the price was right, the supermarket, if they wanted to stay in business, would have to improve the quality of the product to match the price, OR decrease the price to match the quality, at which point the consumers start buying.

Freedom of choice is evident at every step of the way, here, from product conception, to stocking, to selling and buying. No 'steam-rollering' has taken place. The market is the only regulator you need. His second point is even better.

He remarks that "'We' don't want them to squeeze out any more of the smaller shops." Squeeze what, exactly? What he fails to acknowledge is that the supermarkets were smaller shops at the beginning, too. But their ambitious owners decided that they weren't content with serving milk over a counter for the rest of their lives, and so planned and worked toward the expansion of their one shop into many, much larger ones.

As they, too, had their own competition, they had to operate with guile and genius in creating a product and service that was of superior quality and price to that of their competitors. And their eventual reward was a chain of supermarkets that people regularly, willingly visit to buy their quality products at the right price.

Colin continues: "I see this campaign by the supermarkets to increase, yet again, their trading hours on a Sunday, as just a further erosion." Erosion of what? He doesn't say. Then: "They just want to get to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, no matter what the religious holidays are." Hmm… Would the supermarkets profit from doing this?

If they did, it would be because people, again, were willingly putting their hand in their pocket to buy things they wanted. If the supermarkets didn't make a profit from 24/7, what would be the sense in their throwing money away keeping the shop open? Again, the market is the only regulator you need.

As an ex-retailer for many years before venturing into the business world, I was privy to the first hand views of fellow shopworkers. Needless to say, the opinions were split as to whether the law (which was a few years old by then) was a good thing or not - with most believing it was. In fact, unsurprisingly again, the majority actually believed the law was a bad thing, and that they believed that NO store should be permitted to open on ANY Sunday.

Indeed, shopworkers are among the loudest protesters. According to another BBC news story from 25 June, 2006, titled: "Shoppers 'Want Long Sunday Hours'", any Sunday extensions were vehemently opposed by the Church of England and Usdaw, the union representing shopworkers. What a surprise. The same cross-party panel 'warned' that extended shop opening times on Sundays could give some parents less time to spend with their children. (Referring to parents who willingly choose to work somewhere that operates on a Sunday)

They explain, "We would like to see this country return to a day of rest, to have a day when families can be together, have the Sunday dinner, go out and go to the seaside, play in the park." That would be really nice for them. I'm sure they'd like to hire officials round to our houses to make sure we're complying with their wishes, too. In fact, we could even sit on the floor, eating spotted dick for dessert, then ride our penny-farthings down to the park, play with our spinning tops and completely return to the nineteenth century. As long as they get their votes.

To briefly touch on the religious aspect of the Easter holiday, in the aforementioned articles a case was made for the 'respect' of Christianity. In light of it being a religious holiday, this is natural. But, being an atheist, and fighting for freedom, comments like these serve to add fuel to my fire.

If it isn't bad enough that businesses are forced to close their doors, the 'reason' given to them - that it is to pay homage to a man who came back to life again - is pure madness. Allow me to be the kid in the street calling-out the emperor wearing no clothes by declaring that this is absolutely insane.

Many businesses have been speaking out in opposition to the trading laws, exclaiming that they have cost them thousands in lost revenue. This is revenue that consumers were happily dipping their hand in their pockets for to hand over in exchange for goods and services they really wanted. Many business owners said that until the regulations were imposed, the Easter weekend was the busiest four days of the year.

Yet anti-capitalist, backward, anti-human organisations such as the 'Keep Sunday Special Campaign' would gladly have those same happy, volitional shoppers forced to stay at home against their will in order to preserve tradition.

If proof is needed that shoppers would rather have a choice to shop on Sundays or not, observe the findings of a 'YouGov' poll carried out for the 'My Sunday My Choice' campaign, (which wants the Sunday trading laws to be deregulated) - as reported in the previous BBC article.

Of 2,331 people questioned for the 'My Sunday My Choice' campaign, 57% said they should be allowed to shop when and where they want, while 23% disagreed. The campaign claims that deregulation would generate an extra £1.4bn for the UK economy and bring England and Wales into line with Scotland. The 23% would evidently prefer to have the choice taken away from them in order that nobody made more money than them. That's mental suicide if ever I heard it.

The poll executers' rival campaign 'Keep Sunday Special' says it wants to see Easter Sunday return to a family day of rest. But the poll clearly indicates that they don't want to rest. So, to force people into doing something they clearly don't want to do, is anti-freedom, and is the brainchild of nut cases.

To sum up, what we have here is a complete negation of choice and freedom. The nil by minds clamour for rules and regulations, but as per usual they fail to realise that with every rule comes another loaded gun at the head of those that break it. This is not freedom. Freedom is waking-up on Easter Sunday and realising you need to stock-up on supplies, remembering you won't have time to shop for a few days, and having the option to pop down the supermarket today, as it's your best chance.

Freedom is wanting to own a supermarket chain offering quality goods to people, at the right prices, deciding to open on Easter Sunday, and either reasoning that the sales warranted a future opening on this day, or not, but being free to choose either way.

Freedom is deciding it's time to hire extra staff to cope with the expansion of your supermarket chain, and being free to do so, pitching wages that you feel represent the value of the jobs you are offering, and either having this wage offer vindicated by the receiving of applicants, OR receiving no applicants - signifying that the wage offer is too low - and being free to offer more (or less, if the converse is true).

Freedom is wanting a job in a supermarket, finding a supermarket that is offering work, learning that they open on Easter Sundays, and the successful applicant may be required to work then, deliberating whether you would want to work on Easter Sunday, and making your final, unforced decision in light of this information.

Without choice, there is no freedom. This is what I'm fighting. Are you with me?

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

If you ask most people what it means to be spiritual, they'll tell you that it means to believe in God. They'll tell you that it means to pray in times of desperation and need. They'll tell you that it means to talk to angels. They'll tell you that it means to be in contact with the 'other side'.

I used to spend time meditating and visualising and drawing 'Angel Cards' and muttering mantras in an effort to 'be in touch with my spiritual side'. I read books on the soul, love, angels, etc. I referred to myself as a spiritual person. I fooled myself, with the aid of the books, into believing that by being in touch with my spiritual side in this way, I was laying the foundation for a solid and moral philosophy that would lead me into a life of integrity.

But after years of living in this way, at the end of it all, I was left looking into a vacant hole where a little thing called happiness should have been - and with it the stark realisation that the stuff doesn't work. It's literally just a waste of time. It's just an alternative for action. Intelligent action. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not completely condemning any form of introspection.

On the contrary, it's intelligent contemplation of my thoughts, feelings and direction that lead me here, to the discovery and undertaking of a life purpose that consumes my entire soul. But there's a big difference between intelligent, rational thinking and reasoning - and the emptying of one's mind or the conversation between invisible fairies and your soul.

So what IS the soul? The soul is not just some ghost that flits from one incarnation to another. But at the same time, we're not simply lumps of flesh. In that respect we, as humans, are no different to any other animal on earth; a butterfly is not simply a lump of flesh. Where we DO differ is the fact that we have a mind capable of choice, or free will. The soul is really the composite of your mind, body and emotions. When one of these dies - you die. End of story.

As I've grown as a person, I've come to realise that, actually, everyone is spiritual. Everyone sane, that is. The reason for this is that to be spiritual is to be in touch with your soul. Your soul - you, your self - can tell when it's happy or not. When you do something wrong by your mind, body, or emotions - it makes you feel bad.

When you do something right by your mind, body or emotions - it makes you feel good. And every sane human seeks to be happy - it's their number one goal. To live otherwise is insane. Everyone seeks to be happy by pleasing themselves - everyone is therefore selfish.

Anyone who practises a life of selflessness - that apparently lives to ignore their soul (mind, body, emotions) - i.e., who lives to deny their own happiness, is either a liar or masochistic (and hence won't live long). These types of people are not spiritual, no matter how adamant they wail that they are.

So, then, if everyone sane is spiritual and lives to be happy, then they welcome - they strive for that which makes them feel good. Anything that makes them feel good. Laughing, good sex, rollercoasters, football matches, fast cars, beachfront properties, a good book, the theatre, sky diving, etc.

With that said, being spiritual does not mean going to a haunted house every Sunday to kneel on a mat and pray to ghosts. It does not mean sleeping on the floor in a mud hut, wearing a loincloth and swatting flies. It also does not mean living in world where money doesn't exist. The mystics would have us believe that to be spiritual is to denounce money and the 'material' as evil. But what is the 'material' exactly? The dictionary definition of 'material' is:

Composed of or relating to things that occupy space and can be perceived by the senses.

So, then, the material is anythin that can be touched with your fingers, smelt with your nose, heard with your ears, seen with your eyes, and tasted in your mouth. Anything material you wish to own costs money - clothes, fast cars, good books, beach front properties, mobile phones, cutlery, etc.

So to denounce the 'material' is to denounce not only those things which make you feel good, but also those things that make your life comfortable. To denounce the 'material' is to opt out of a life of comfort and advancement, and in to a life of the Neanderthal. And there's nothing spiritual about that.

Ideally, the solution to a rewarding, spiritual life is to figure out exactly what it is you want to do with your life, shut out everything else that detracts from that, and just do it. So why not just live ideally? Well, if you're anything like I was, you may have qualities, traits and beliefs that you know are not congruent with your purpose, yet are proving just too damn hard to shake-off.

I've shaken-off some of mine. I still have some - sometimes the programming goes deep. But I reasoned that burying my head in an angel book, or meditating, or repeating affirmations until I'm blue in the face - are all not the answer.

No. The answer is smart work. Just like anything in life that you want to become good at. You work out what's holding you back from becoming who you want to become, and you go to work on improving these weak areas. With action. I physically work on my fears everyday, and I can honestly say they are disappearing. No angels. No 'ohm'-ing. No closing my eyes and picturing that which is invisible to me. No tricks. No gimmicks.

Sure, I have pictures and images of my dreams and goals in my line of vision at my desk, but these merely serve to constantly remind me of the prizes waiting for me during my journey. Their attainment will be realised by nothing other than intelligently conceived hard work. Not meditation or affirmations.

It's good to be spiritual. Just not in the way you were thinking.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens