Looking for The One?......maybe there are many The One's

 

Are you looking for the "One"?

 (With that I mean that one person that possesses all the qualities that your heart desires.)

In some cultures, marriages are arranged and whether that person is the "One" or not does not enter into the equation, the coupling is less a matter of the heart and more a matter of suitability and tradition. Which is not to say, in my view, that an arranged marriage/coupling need be any less successful, loving, or "happy" than a marriage/coupling founded on romantic love.

According to the philosopher Alain de Botton: "There is a cult of Romanticism. It started in the 18th century, and it basically told people that everybody has a soul mate, everybody has somebody who will cure them of all loneliness."

So what is a "soul mate"? From what I can gather, a soul mate is someone who makes us feel "complete", someone who "gets" us, ......someone who loves us as much as we love them.

Hmmm...not saying there is no such thing but.......this seems like a tall order for someone to fulfil.

If we are looking for example, for someone to "cure" our loneliness, are we really looking for someone to have a loving relationship with, or are we perhaps looking for someone that "makes" us feel better about ourselves? As well as the romantic notion of a soul mate, often there seem to be an underlying subtext attached to the soul mate concept: "If you love me, like I love you, then you understand me without me always having to tell you what's on my mind." Is that true however, is it reasonable to hold the expectation that loving someone automatically means "knowing" all that goes on inside that person's heart, mind, and soul, without verbal confirmations?

Do we hold the expectations that once we find The One, The One will know what our needs are without us having to verbalise exactly what those are?

Do we expect of ourselves to know what our soul mate's needs are without asking?

Before I go on, perhaps I better define my view of love:

It seems to me that we love someone when we care more about the other as he/she is, rather than who we think they should become, when we reveal ourselves honestly and vulnerably just as we offer the same for the other. We love someone when we act with patience, resilience, compassion, forgiveness, attention, and with a whole hearted commitment to their well being.

If our search for The One is primarily driven by wants, then we may have a "shopping list": "I want a kind, tall, slim, rich, fit, good-looking, sporty, smart, well-dressed, professional, etc. etc. person, because those things matter to me and so those things would have to matter for my soul mate as well."

Compiling a list when grocery shopping, or shopping for a new electronic device may be helpful, but I wonder if it's really helpful to have a "wants" list when looking for someone to share a loving relationship with, I mean, what if we meet someone who "ticks" some of the boxes but not all?

(Some suggest that we have a subconscious internal "check list" and that often when we meet someone with a similar personality to our own, we feel a connection and an ease being with them. Ticks a few of our boxes, so to speak.)

The need to belong and to love, according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, are two of our most fundamental needs.

Matthew Lieberman writes: "60 years of attachment research attests; connection is the platform for the rest of existence, thriving and flourishing. Love and belonging are not conveniences we can live without."

There is plenty of scientific research to support this: we need to love and be loved, and to belong.

What if the notion of a soul mate is just that; a notion; what if there are any number of potential soul mates? What if a soul mate is something someone becomes through the nurturing of a relationship with love, compassion, patience, and understanding?

For any relationship to flourish, it is my belief that verbalising our needs rather than relying on "mind reading" is more helpful.

Examples of mind reading: "If you love me, then I shouldn't have to tell you what I need....If you love me, then you know what I need" .......If you love me I shouldn't have to explain"....according to Alain de Botton these expectations have their roots in our childhoods when our parents often successfully guessed what we needed without us specifying those needs........ "that sets up a dangerous precedent whereby we equate true love with someone who doesn't need to have things spelt out to them."

The drawback on relying on our loved ones guessing what our needs may be, or us guessing what their needs may be, is that it often gives rise to a lot of misunderstanding and contention.

If a "true" love is supposed to just know, then what is a "true" love? A feeling, an attitude, a choice?

Is it possible that true love begins as a feeling, develops into an attitude, and then becomes a choice?

If you are looking for The One and have a checklist, may I suggest that you throw away that list? Instead, if you meet someone you connect with, adopt an open heart and mind and communicate honestly with that person.

"Love is an unconditional commitment to an imperfect person. Love isn't just a strong feeling, it's a decision, a judgement, and a promise." (LoveQuotes)

The Heart - and why putting barbwire around it is not a good idea....

 

Metaphorically speaking, the heart is commonly used to symbolise the centre of emotion, love, affection, and romantic love. The Egyptians believed that the heart was the source of the soul, memory, emotions and personality. Aristotle said that the heart was the source of intelligence, motion, and sensation. During the Renaissance, however, that view changed and the heart became a mere organ that pumps blood.

Before the heart became a mere pump, a great number of influential and much revered and loved literature had been written, and this may help explain why the notion of the heart as a metaphor for emotions and the soul has persisted. Perhaps another contributing aspect may be that we "feel" things in the heart as in: when we get excited it beats faster.

Knowing that physically speaking the heart is a pump, does not seem to prevent us from using it metaphorically. Some examples: "the heart of the matter is..., he was heartbroken, you need to stay in touch with your heart, she was tugging at his heart strings, she was singing the song without any heart in it, put some heart into it, his heart was crushed, they acted without heart, that was a heartless action, etc.etc.".

"Wherever you go, go with all your heart". (Confucius)

I would like to hazard a suggestion that most of us have experienced what we would call a "heartbreak" of some sort. A break-up, loss, rejection, betrayal, indifference, disappointment, and so on, but no matter why, .....it hurts. In order to protect ourselves from being hurt again, many of us "padlock" our hearts, put barbwire around it, build walls, conjure up any number of different methods to keep our hearts safe from being hurt again. There can be a problem with doing so however, because preventing our hearts from being accessed from the "outside", can "harden" our hearts towards ourselves as well as others. "Well, that's it, I'm never going to open my heart to anyone again, ....in the end it just leads to pain" is an understandable response after a break-up, disappointment, and/or a rejection, problem is...... when we decide to "close" our hearts, it affects most aspects of our lives.

(As a temporary healing method, this may be helpful, but as a long term solution to get over heartbreak, in my view,....not so much.) Wrapping barbwire (metaphorically speaking) around our hearts may prevent others from trying to get close to us (and prevent us from being hurt), but the spikes cuts both ways. In our attempt to protect ourselves from pain, we inflict pain on ourselves by not allowing our hearts to expand, to reach out, and to love freely.

Life is risky business; it includes experiences of disappointment, suffering, pain, rejection, broken hearts and broken promises, etc., but it also includes experiences of; joy, fulfilment, friendship, happiness, affection, love, plus a whole lot more.

Having an "open" heart (no walls, barbwire etc.), in my view does not mean "loving" everyone and everything all the time, rather, it is an attitude of setting aside fears and/or hasty judgements, and inspite of perceived risks invest some of the treasures of the heart: compassion, understanding, tolerance, empathy, forgiveness, acceptance, and love; in others, as well as ourselves.

 

“I have worn my heart on my sleeve because it is too painful to carry it inside my chest.
When I carry it on my sleeve, it has the freedom to exist, to beat in rhythm with the Universe.
I feel like I'm more alive and yes, there are those who out of curiosity will say or do things that can cause its delicate existence to feel pain and sorrow.
I would rather deal with that, than to put it back in its little cage where it knows nothing else but the rhythm of my body and my Ego.
My heart was never meant to be part of my Ego.
My heart was meant to experience the Soul.”   (C.C. Campbell)

"There is freedom in taking responsibility for one's own life"........

 

I was once told by a wise man: "There is freedom in taking responsibility for one's own life".

When I first heard those words, a number of retorts instantly surfaced and there seemed to be no end to the "but's": "but I am not responsible for what other people say, do, or how they treat me, or what happens, etc. etc.".

Then driving home late one night from a gig (music), I suddenly got it and I

 felt as if a massive burden fell off my shoulders.

Many of us have probably had times in our lives when life seemed so complicated, and so difficult, and so confusing, and so painful, that we wished someone would just appear and rescue us from all our troubles. In the Pyramid Texts of ancient Egypt, we find the earliest evidence of the human quest for "salvation", to be "rescued", to be "saved". Of course, in those days, staying alive and well was far more challenging than it is for most of us today. Today we have tools that we can use to predict and analyse a great many things with, and this helps us to make and take preventative precautions, anticipate what may happen in the future theoretically and even practically, we can do modelling, we can create virtual realities, but, the biggest of all issues that every human being have to face: mortality; we all have to face on our own, and at this point in time; our own mortality is not something we can be "rescued" from.

Some of us perhaps feel inclined to want to "fix"  or "rescue" things, ourselves, other people, and situations, and some of us perhaps feel inclined to assign blame and often feel as if we are "victims".

(I am using the term "victim" here for lack of a better word. Put another way: some of us see a problem and ask ourselves what we have to do to fix it, some of us see a problem and ask others what they are going to do to fix it, although some of us perhaps swing between the two.)

Victor Frankl, Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist, and also a Holocaust survivor, writes in his book "Man's search for meaning": "Those who came to the camp and kept asking "why is this happening to me" hardly ever survived more than a few weeks,..... I realised that those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'."

Many of us have probably asked that question: "Why is this happening to me?" and quietly wished that someone would swoop in and rescue us. For some of us, when we were children, often our first heroes and rescuers were our parents/caregivers. When we had a bad dream, when we scrubbed our knees, when a friend let us down, when our first love dumped us, our "heroes" would come to our rescue and comfort us. If, on the other hand, we had parents/caregivers who did not come to our rescue, rather, we had to learn to fight our own battles from a very young age, and for many of us, this often forced us to find our heroes/rescuers within ourselves.

"There is freedom in taking responsibility for one's own life".

So what kind of responsibility am I talking about?

I guess that my interpretation is this: the actions and decisions that I make, I hold myself accountable for, as well as the outcomes that are results of those actions and decisions.

How does this relate to "freedom"?

If I am not responsible for my life, then I have very little say in what happens, things happens to me over which I have very little control; a restrained existence.

Taking ownership and responsibility not only for our actions and decisions, but also for our emotions, I believe we have the freedom to choose how we will respond.

"No, you're wrong there, people can make you angry, upset, sad and so on" you may say.

"Ofcourse I am going feel angry when someone says something insulting."

Victor Frankl: "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom."

Even if someone says something insulting to us, we still have the freedom to choose how we will respond. Yesterday, as I was making an inquiry into the changes the government has made in regards to how to renew a car registration, the assistant spoke to me in shall we say, a very arrogant manner.

As I repeated my question over and over, I could feel my patience waning. ... I perhaps could say that she made me angry, but that would be incorrect, she did not make me angry, I felt angry because my expectations of how I believed she should have spoken to me was not met.

I chose to remain calm. (Then I went out into the car park and vented my anger....hehehe, no, not really)

According to the really smart people, nobody can make us feel bad, angry, sad, etc. ....how we feel is our own choice, our own responsibility.

Which in my view, is good news.

There may be times in our lives when we may need a rescuer, as in; we are flooded and sitting on the roof, a fire is raging around us, our car has broken down, we are being attacked, and so on... but as a coping strategy for life, may I suggest that embracing responsibility and ownership for our own lives, offers so much more.........

And now for some Good News.....

 

Before the event of Microsoft's use of the term "windows", windows often referred to the boundary between the inside and the outside, the private sphere and the public (although, in literature the term is also used in: "the eyes as windows to the soul"(heart, mind).

I take the meaning of "the eyes are the windows of the soul" to be that through someone's eyes their inner states are possible to be "seen".)

 Do you watch the news? I do, and last night when I was watching the news it suddenly dawned on me that the news perhaps can be viewed as "windows" into a multitude of situations and events, but also into people's lives, both public and private.

“To grow interested in any piece of information, we need somewhere to 'put' it, which means some way of connecting it to an issue we already know how to care about.”   Writes Alain de Botton in his book: "The News: A users manual". As I was watching one news item after the other of destruction, violence, natural catastrophes, crying children and celebrities doing "stupid" things, etc. etc., Alain de Botton's words rang true to me.

Where are we to put all these "windows" of information?

According to statistics, we are becoming increasingly more anxious about what the future holds for us personally as well as collectively. Some of us may choose to avoid watching the news and current affairs programs, documentaries and commentaries on world events, some of us may feel that it is important to keep up with such and seek them out, some of us perhaps compartmentalise and only watch and read about those particular things that we feel invested in, and some of us perhaps don't want to see or hear about any of those things because after all, "what can we do about it anyway?"

May I suggest, that the TV screen (computer, ipad, phone) is in itself a "window", and regardless of what we may be watching, what we see, affects us in a myriad of different ways.

Reality shows, for instance, why are they so attractive to so many of us? Could they not perhaps be seen as quite voyeuristic in nature, as an intrusion into peoples private spheres? Peeking behind the curtains, so to speak? Some suggest that reality shows give us an opportunity to compare: ourselves to others (I wish I had his/her life), others to us (gee, I am happy I'm not living his/her life), "I would never behave like that, I would never do that, I would never say those things, I wish I was brave enough to do that, I could have become a .......too, I am just as good as him/her so I am going to give it a shot", etc.etc.. Personally, I find it interesting to watch talent shows, whether they are about music, painting, cooking, baking, renovation, or etc.etc.., I find it encouraging and inspiring to watch people having a "go" and developing their skills at doing something they are passionate about.

But back to the news and the many confrontational images that enter our private spaces through the TV screen (computer, ipad, phone). Alain de Botton again: “Though anger seems a pessimistic response to a situation, it is at root a symptom of hope: the hope that the world can be better than it is. The man who shouts every time he loses his house keys is betraying a beautiful but rash faith in a universe in which keys never go astray. The woman who grows furious every time a politician breaks an election promise reveals a precariously utopian belief that elections do not involve deceit.
The news shouldn’t eliminate angry responses; but it should help us to be angry for the right reasons, to the right degree, for the right length of time – and as part of a constructive project."

The thing with the News as I see it, is that it does not "peek behind the curtains", rather, the curtains have been removed altogether and what we see (although interpreted to some degree), are actual events, which is perhaps one of the reasons why it can be so confrontational to watch news programs. "Good News doesn't sell newspapers" so some say, and then often goes on to add: "people don't want to hear about happy people, happy events, or happy outcomes, people want to hear about other people being worse off than themselves so that they can say to themselves that they are not so bad off after all".

Is this really true? Hearing of others tragedies, does that help us to view our own less tragically?

Then what? Is it not possible that if a measure of "good news" had to be included in the news reports along with the "bad news", we may feel less overwhelmed and inclined to throwing in the towel, but instead feel encouraged to entertain the notion that we can all find some small, or big, way to contribute something "good" for the betterment of mankind?

(There are a few sites on the web that offers Good News/Positive News, and browsing those I have found can be rather inspiring when the onslaught of bad news seem to fill every channel.)

Alain de Botton again: “To live in modernity--an era contemporaneous with the triumph of the news--is to be constantly reminded that, thanks to science and technology, change and improvement are continuous and relentless. This is part of the reason we must keep checking the news in the first place: we might at any moment be informed of some extraordinary development that will fundamentally alter reality. Time is an arrow following a precarious, rapid and yet tantalizingly upward trajectory.”  

Did you know that:

 Ebola was eradicated in Liberia in May 2015, in Nigeria in October 2015, and both Sierra Leone and Guinea were declared free of the disease in December 2015?

There is a new kind of antibiotics called Teixobactin that can kill "superbugs"?

Australian scientists has solved the puzzle of how Alzheimer’s disease destroys connections in the brain?

Park rangers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo reported in 2015 that the mountain gorilla population had quadrupled in recent decades to 1,000?

Some doctors in Canada has developed a method for penetrating the protective layer of the brain to allow medicine to be delivered directly to deadly tumours through the blood stream. The breakthrough allows easier and far more effective treatment of cancer, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer's disease? (from  GoodNewsNetwork)

 

One of the good things about our "artificial" windows in my view, is that we can turn them off when we want and or need to, .....real life on the other hand,  .........not so much.

But, there is always something we can do for someone else, no matter how small that something may be, to make that someone else's life a little bit easier, happier, and/or more endurable.

All that is needed is to look for that window of opportunity to lend a helping hand.

On: Embracing the "inner child" and becoming an adult....

 

 

"Caring for your inner child has a powerful and surprisingly quick result: Do it and the child heals." (Martha beck)

So, what is the "inner child"? The inner child: "the aspect of one's psyche that is believed to retain feelings as they were experienced in childhood."

(Some suggest that all of us carry within us an "inner child" regardless of how old we are, and that communicating and acknowledging that inner child can help us to overcome hurtful experiences we had as children.)

I have often heard people make remarks such as: "yeah,  people blame their problems on their childhoods" followed by "but they're adults now and should deal with their problems as adults".

A problem with that statement as I see it, is that it doesn't define exactly what an adult is.

Different societies have different definitions; some base it on ritual, some on age, some on behaviour, some on emotional maturity, and some perhaps on all the above.

(Although, may I suggest that it is quite possible to behave as a "child" although considering oneself as an adult, and it is quite possible for a child to behave as an "adult".)

How we were treated as children often sets a precedent for how we behave as adults, and commonly children tend to assign blame to themselves when things go "wrong". "My folks got divorced because I was such a demanding child", "my dad was only tough on me because I was too soft", "my mom didn't help me with my schoolwork because she wanted me to become independent", "my parents didn't show me any affection because I was such a needy child", etc. etc.

When needs are not being met, rather than seeing something "wrong/bad" with his/her parents(parent/primary caregiver)behaviour (this thought is un-acceptable), a child rationalises, and takes on the responsibility for unmet needs. Eventually, this often results in the child forming the idea: "there's something wrong with me, I am just not good enough", and although we grow older and form other relationships, this sense of rejection can cling on to us throughout our lives.

Our childhoods, whether we view them as good or bad, exerts a great influence on us. How we dealt with the experiences we had as children may I suggest, plays a great role in how we deal with life as adults.

If as children we were in the habit of believing that we were responsible for "bad/wrong" things happening, then chances are that we will continue to do so in our adult lives. If as children we were in the habit of believing that others were responsible for "bad/wrong" things happening, then chances are we that we will continue to do so in our adult lives. Personally, I believe that some bad things happen as a part of life.....sometimes we may be responsible, sometimes others may be responsible, sometimes it happens by accident.

Reading a book on "Healing your childhood", the author (name escapes me) suggested that to assist in healing, it could be helpful to have an imaginary conversation with the "inner child". Remembering a painful memory, as an adult, what would I say to that inner child? (I imagined that inner child sitting in a chair opposite me)  This may seem quite an abstract thing to do, but much to my amazement, I found it to be very helpful. Revisiting painful childhood memories now as an adult, I was able to offer that inner child the comfort and insight that as a child I had no access to.

Not that it changed anything that had happened, but it changed how I viewed those experiences.

We can't change what happened in the past, but we can change how we view those past experiences, and with a changed view, a measure of healing is a possibility.

Childhood, whether good or bad, brilliant or rotten, bears with it far reaching influences well into our adulthood. Regardless of what kind of childhood we had, may I suggest that we still get to choose what kind of adults we want to be.

“For in every adult there dwells the child that was, and in every child there lies the adult that will be.”   (John Connolly)

So, how do I define being an adult?

Some  suggestions:

Being able to take ownership and responsibility for personal actions

Being able to take ownership and responsibility for personal emotions

Being able to take ownership and responsibility for personal decisions

Being able to take ownership and responsibility for personal changes

Being able to take ownership and responsibility for personal motivations and inspirations

 

 

"It is necessary to own and honor the child who we were in order to Love the person we are. And the only way to do that is to own that child's experiences, honor that child's feelings, and release the emotional grief energy that we are still carrying around."
(Robert Burney)

 

Looking for the heart....the quest for overcoming prejudice....

 

When I was a kid, I was bullied for many years. Sometimes the bullying resulted in a beating, but mostly it consisted of verbal abuse.  There seemed to be no end to what was different about me, and therefore "wrong" in the eyes of others, so, school for me was rather tortuous and often lonely.

Prejudice, something that probably most of us have to deal with at some time in our lives, is a heavy burden to carry, whether we hold it or are the "recipients" of it.

So what is prejudice? According to Wikipedia: "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience", or "an opinion or judgment that disregards the facts." One of the many problems that comes with prejudice is that it often encourages discrimination and stereo-typing.

Examples of common prejudices: "All blondes are dumb"....."all the people on welfare are lazy"....."all religious people believe in fairy tales"......."women are over-emotional"....."men are only interested in one thing"......."people who don't speak English are dumb"......and so on.

Prejudice can perhaps be viewed as "pre-judgement" and in my view is problematic because it prevents a deeper understanding and insight into that which it pre-judges. Are all blondes really dumb? To ascertain such is it not necessary to actually know all who are blonde? Are really all people who are welfare recipients lazy? Is it not possible that some are not? and so on.

In conversation with someone, I was told that "people on the dole are all lazy" to which I retorted: "How many people on the dole do you know?" Answer: "Well, I don't really know anybody, but I can tell." "How can you tell if you don't know anybody?" I asked. Answer: "Well, I see them in shopping centres just lazing about." "How do you know that those you see "lazing about" are not just having a day off work, or on a break, or on holidays, or are shift workers?" I asked. Answer: "You're not going to change my view, my opinion is my opinion." "Even though you don't actually know whether the people you deem lazy "dole bludgers" really are welfare recipients, you still feel it is okay to judge them as such?" I asked. Answer: "I know what I know and you're not going to change that regardless of what you say", she answered and walked away.

Prejudice does not necessarily have to be "negative" (hostile), it can also be "positive" (unduly favourable), but regardless of whether positive or negative, prejudice in my view is an opinion founded not on knowledge, facts and/or insight, rather the lack thereof.

  "Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins" is an old Cherokee saying which I find serves me well as a reminder to not jump to conclusions.

Some suggest that fears of varying kinds and ignorance plays a role in prejudice. As someone once said: "People often fear what they don't understand".

That "bump in the night" may be scary until you realise that it's just a cat, that person following you may seem scary until you realise it's just the waiter trying to return the phone you left at the table, that person scaring you by tailgating is doing so because you have forgotten to turn on your lights, and so on.

Prejudice is often easier to spot in others than in ourselves, just like we probably find it is easier to see others flaws than our own. "You just don't get it, green people are no different than orange people, people are people, all people are selfish and greedy." (All? There is no one who is not?)

"All religious people are nutters believing in fairy tales, that's why I believe in nothing." (Nothing? What about science, medical progress, technology, etc.?)

"I have nothing against purple people, ......as long as they keep to themselves."

Most societies have prejudice of some form and of varying degrees; gender prejudice, racial prejudice, religious prejudice, social prejudice, to mention a few. Unfamiliarity with others customs, cultures, and traditions, can often give rise to prejudice...."People often fear what they don't understand".

Prejudice at its worst is when it is used to justify the annihilation of one people for the benefit of another people. Millions, upon millions of people have been killed just because they were not the "right" kind, the "right" kind of culture, didn't have the "right" belief system, and didn't "look" right.

Billions of us are hanging on to a thin, crusty layer on this planet we call Earth trying to raise our children, make a living, and give our lives some meaning. Perhaps if we, mankind, were to focus more of our efforts on overcoming prejudice, intolerance, discrimination, and judging without insight, we may find ways to a more congruous existence.

All of us humans, whether green, orange or purple, do we not all desire to love and be loved, to belong and get along, to hope and dream, and have a place we call our home?

Look not to someone's countenance, nor the clothes they wear, nay, say I, ....rather, look at their hearts. 

“Our job on earth isn't to criticize, reject, or judge. Our purpose is to offer a helping hand, compassion, and mercy. We are to do unto others as we hope they would do unto us.” (Dana Arcuri)

 

"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively,

 not by the false appearance things present,

and which leads into error,

not directly by the weakness of the reasoning powers,

but by preconceived opinion ...

.....by prejudice." (Arthur Schopenhauer)

 

ps: the computer is playing up, please excuse the weirdness halfway through...

Finding beauty....an instant heart-re-charge.......

 

A picture paints a thousand words.......

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder......

 

Does a landscape have to be photographically accurate in order to be considered beautiful?

Can something be scary, yet still beautiful?

 

 

Can a man be considered a "beauty" in the same sense as a woman?

(this is a painting of Zac, my son's friend)

 

What exactly is "beauty", and why does it pull at our emotions? Why do we "feel" things when we experience something beautiful?

How do we decide what to consider beautiful?

How is it that experiencing beauty can somehow make life seem "fuller" for some of us?

It seems that defining exactly why experiencing something beautiful makes us "feel" something is not an easy thing, actually, I am yet to find any substantial information on this...however...may I ask: Is there beauty in your life, do you enjoy beautiful things(whatever they are to you: music, nature, art, etc.etc)?

As a person who enjoys beauty where ever it can be found, may I suggest this: Look for beauty and the beautiful no matter what......when beauty touches the heart it's like an instant "re-charge".

 

"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched - they must be felt with the heart", so said Helen Keller. (who was both deaf and blind yet earned a bachelor of arts degree)