The Final Theory of Love

[qualia1234]

Just to make it perfectly clear, the below post is entirely my own words and not a copy/paste from elsewhere and I have never posted this in any other place or forums online. Feel free to verify..

This is not in any way an exhaustive discourse on the subject/topic of "love" but more or less my own personal views on what I believe is the probably one of the more accurate descriptions of LOVE and its joys, sorrows and all the mess and complicated knots as well of sublime simplicity that comes with it.

Instead of the usual bottom up approach which has never gotten me anywhere close in truly understanding what love IS, I will forgo what doesn't work and try a top down approach to analyze what it is about "love" that moves us the most.

Ok, the REAL question is why is there something instead of nothing? By that I mean to ask, why is there "anything" at all (a world, a universe, existence in general..) instead of "nothing at all" (me not being born, no life on earth, no stars no planets, no local universes, no omnium multiverse(s), no existential or totality of existence, absolutely no-'thing' whatsoever..) Why is the default "existence" instead of non-existence? What is our "starting point", what do we know for CERTAIN and how can we derive our understanding and realization of the rest of the universe and everything else from this first-final 'a priori' singularity of a staring point of everything and nothing?

The short answer appears to be that whatever this 'ultimate reality' actually IS, it is above and beyond mere "nothingness at all" and/or "anything/everything at all" It is greater than the ultimate "mystery" and it contains ALL unknowns and it encompasses and includes and corporates all of that FULLY. As the " Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" puts it:

"Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect
or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance).

While this characterization of reality incorporates a circular definition of relevance, the circularity is essential to the reality concept and does not preclude a perceptual (observational, scientific) basis. Indeed, we can refine the definition of reality as follows: “Reality is the perceptual aggregate including (1) all scientific observations that ever were and ever will be, and (2) the entire abstract and/or cognitive explanatory infrastructure of perception” (where the abstract is a syntactic generalization of the concrete standing for ideas, concepts or cognitive structures
distributing over physical instances which conform to them as content conforms to syntax). "

Therefore we have it as Reality is existence, and existence is everything; and the theory of everything must start there. As Sir Roger Penrose pointed out in his book "The Road to Reality : A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" there are at least three "domains" of existences. We have the mental world, physical world and the platonic mathematical world. And there seems to be a deep and profound mystery and connection between them. If a true "theory of everything" is ever to be discovered we need to have an explanation for the epiphenomenon experience that we call "consciousness" or "awareness" (qualia). But still why does "being" win over "non-being" and why does "existence" persists over "not existing"? Perhaps it is like described at everythingforever website in which "Nothing, by definition, is not something" and "The only alternative to reality, therefore, is unreality, which, as the very word implies, is not real - i.e. which isn't." or from the Zero Ontology website which takes the stance and viewpoint that in the end "nothing" (0) and something/everything (infinity) actually mean one and the same thing! This is in accordance also with the Eastern Mystics of Nonduality and Advaita in which ultimately "nothing" and "everything" cannot be categorically seperated and isolated as different things and in fact the two are simply two sides of the one same coin, type identical everywhere!

So at the top of this all we have the "absolute". This one everything-and-nothing that is the source of all apparitions (including the so called physical universe, love, beauty, ALL OF IT) Life as we know it in its infinite myriad forms somehow manifests and expresses itself as "relative of", and contained within the totality of the ONE Absolute. The forms and essences are actually "empty" and there is nothing at all! We are living the illusion of an illusion (but more about that later..)

So we take nothing and everything, zero and infinity existence and nonexistence not as fundamentally distinct or categorically different defaults or positions but as simply two sides of the one same coin, we then see the whole entire universe and indeed the omnium multiverse(s) and the ultimate totality of all grand existences itself as a single pure oneness, an 'entangled' state - an unimaginably vast holistic and holographic superpositional state where "no-thing", "something", and "everything" are really all always meaning the same "thing". So instead of asking why does an universe exists instead of nothing at all, or instead of (not)-asking why does nothing exists instead of something/anything at all, we see clearly that what IS is simply everything-nothing just is-ing.

But how do we account for qualia and "sentience"? How is the "hard problem of consciousness" and the so called "mind body paradox" ever going to be solved? I believe this can only be done by incorporating "consciousness" (micro-qualia) as fundamental to reality of existence as space and time and energy and mass itself!
In the paper "implications of a fundamental conciousness" the author has stated that he believes that the reason so far no problems arose in our physical understanding of the universe without having to take into account consciousness at any level (so far the scientific paradigm has all but ignored its existence) is because of the fact that : "when most experiments involve overwhelmingly physical phenomena, it simply doesn’t matter whether mentality exists or not. But when in trying to understand what the brain is up to, on the other hand, the assumptions made about primal reality matter a great deal. Most importantly, perhaps, they limit the range of hypotheses that are likely to occur to experimenters and theorists — or to be taken seriously by them if proposed by others."

This is in accordance with other observations that the physical world cannot possible exists independent of the "spiritual one".
In the article "Can Matter be Explained in Terms
of Consciousness?" it has been show that the Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox - thought experiment backfired on its creates and in fact leads us to accept "consciousness" as more fundamental in reality than space and time! Namely, and to put in very concisely :

"The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics requires that a moving elementary particle has no localized form until it impacts upon a receptor. And information is carried from the object to the observer by a series of sources, particles, and receptors. But what is the final receptor? If it is a physical structure, it is by definition made of elementary particles, and if the energy of the incoming quanta is absorbed by physical particles, how can we account for the image of the object of observation that arises in consciousness? Thus the quest for the first receptor becomes an infinite regression in time and space. But time and space are finite in the physical world and there is, therefore, a "bottom" to physical phenomena, the infinite regress or descent is impossible, and we have a logical contradiction. Conclusion: the final receptor and the images it perceives are not composed of quanta of matter and energy."

So by taking "consciousness" as fundamental as space and time we have resolved the dilemma. There is a sense that by doing so we have "cheated" but I don't think that is the case. Other features that physical theory takes as fundamental include mass and space-time. No attempt is made to explain these features in terms of anything simpler. But this does not rule out the possibility of a theory of mass or of space-time. There is an intricate theory of how these features interrelate, and of the basic laws they enter into. These basic principles are used to explain many familiar phenomena concerning mass, space, and time at a higher level. As an example mathematicians had to literally conjure up the 'i' Imaginary number to "explain away" problems with had no real solutions in the domain of the reals. It turns out the magically imaginary number system was not just a convenient invention but coincidentally it reflects the truth of nature on the tiniest scales.

So how do the the elements of the trinity fit together: the "phenomenological" world, the "physical" world, and the "mathematical" world? On the assumption that the principle underlying ultimate reality is radically simple, it will here be conjectured that these three realms are one-and-the-same under different descriptions.

[qualia1234]

Penrose's Platonic-Physical-Mental worlds dilemma can be dealt away with simply by realizing the true unified, nondualistic and superpositional of reality and existence. Instead of positing that the platonic world exists within the mental world and mental world exists within the physical world and the physical world in the platonic world, we need to see all three primary phenomenon as different expressions and manifestations of the one same essence. In place of Penrose's Platonic-Physical-Mental Trinity should be something of a 'qualia wheel'.

If we are ever to come to a true Theory of Everything then it must be necessary to be able to finally reconcile all the seemingly different "existences" into one unified holistic entity and singular essence. Every experience, every sensation and emotion is just like a different color on the continuous color wheel of the infinite qualia. No emotion or state of existence is objectively better or worse than anything other one, love and hate are just a phase shift away from each other on this wheel of experience and the totality of impressions. Seen in this new light, "perfection" and "imperfection" can exists within the one same reality, juxtaposed beside each other and right next to "contradiction". Here on the continuous continuum of the "qualia/toelia color-wheel/sphere" we have different primary colors each representing a different phase of existence. In our illustration and example we have RED standing for the Mental world and Qualia, BLUE for the physical world as-we-know-it, and GREEN for the mathematical and abstract platonic realms.

All the infinite varieties of colors in-between imply the places where each of the "primary worlds" intersect. For this we can consider patterns as foundational: consider the universe as being made of patterns. Consider there as being a set of elemental items, and then patterns among these elemental items. Assume each elemental item has a finite set of finitely-describable properties. Suppose ours is a dynamic universe, in which new patterns are continually occurring. Thus when a new pattern pair appears in the universe, a quale is automatically associated with it. There is a one-to-one mapping associated for each pattern/information in the platonic world to the mental/qualia realm. The unique planar intersections between the abstract platonical and canonical qualia realms are what gives rise to the so called "physical" world.

Instead of mindlessly searching for the "ghost in the machine" all this time it will be realized it was the Machine that is in the ghost!
Values of what-it's-like-ness, qualia and its patterns is all that there is.. Provocatively, cryptically, elliptically, "nothing" exists and there may not be a "physical" universe or external existence somewhere "out there" in the first place!

In a sense zero and infinity are really just different ways of saying the same thing. Zero can be "split" symmetrically to become "something" and "something" that all together always adding back to "nothing again". (perhaps the universe "borrowed" and bootstrapped its way into existence from "nothing" and will pay it back at the end and thus there is no real violation of the law of conservation..) Just as white light can be split into all the different colors on the color wheel using a prism, white light can be created again by combining all the colors of the color wheel back together.

As for why our "local" universe exists, well at this level our current "big bang theory" and the thermodynamic with regards to it is not that far off. Likewise we can "piecewise" explain many more "trivial" and "easy" phenomenon at their perspective functional level (instead of 'atomic' resolution) and it is much more efficient to do so than say for us to "derive" everything meticulously from the "theory of everything".

The anthropic principle aside, Evolutionary Darwinism (or Darwinistic Evolution if you prefer) and both the facts and theories of evolutionary darwinism (including Natural Selection, etc) does seem to satisfactorily and vigorously and completely explain and account for all life (lifeforms, whether they be biological, digital, virtual, In Silicio or existential) at all levels and domains... Ultimately the only permanent (unridable) imperative of any life-form is survival and to "exists" in general. Darwinistic evolution, natural selection and the anthropic principle all dictate that this "survival" and "struggle of existence" is the one underlying force and motive of all life (and perhaps indeed the existence of the universe and its laws itself). All the other motives, drives, emotions and feelings can be derived from this first-final 'a priori' axiom of existence and in fact it can be argued everything else is basically different manifestations and expressions of this one force of nature.

As for explain "life on earth" "as we know it" well it is much "easier" than explanation "existence in general"... First, it all has to do with ENERGY. ALL OF IT. Study Evolutionary Darwinism and you will realize what it is ALL ABOUT. Civil rights, good and bad, right and wrong, peace and violence, all of this and so much more is intricately tied up to the complex systems of ENERGY at the core of everything!

Many people's views on "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong", etc are too over-simplistic. Peace, Love, violence and hatred are too dualistic. These seemingly opposites are actually two sides of the same ONE COIN! These MODES of survival and our modes of perception of these methods are all just very simply different expressions and manifestation of the one same underlying principle, SURVIVAL. Just like the debate of "Capitalism vs Communism/Socialism" is MOOT if only we understood the true workings and underlying mechanisms of ED (not Erectile Dysfunction, but EVOLUTIONARY DARWINISM) ... Capitalism is a MODE of survival for an entire society that works well under a certain set of conditions, once the set of conditions no longer apply then that particular MODE of Survival becomes useless and outdated and is replaced with something else to adapt with the changing times... The same things with people's concepts of "rights" and "freedoms"...

Quoted for posterity:

"Without a government to back them up, statements of “rights” are meaningless. The 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights and all the statements of rights that followed it are nothing more than worthless scraps of paper without a government to back them up. Once food and defense are taken care of, everything else that a government spends money on is discretionary. In a high-energy environment, a lot of attention may be paid to human rights. In a low-energy environment, “rights” of minorities, which are difficult and expensive to enforce, are the first things to go.

When times get hard and there is no longer a near limitless abundance, people will look to any differences as a basis for obtaining more of the limited resources for themselves. Differences in race, differences in religion, differences in language, differences in ethnicity and national origin. This is obvious. Look at the world’s “hot spots.” The war in Rwanda: differences in ethnic groups. The friction in Northern Ireland: religion. The problem in Yugoslavia / Serbia / Kosovo: religion. The problem in Indonesia: race, religion, and ethnicity. The Sinhalese/Tamil problem in Sri Lanka: ethnicity.

The point is not that one race or religion is better or worse than any other. The point is that when push comes to shove, someone has to be killed, and there must be some basis, some rationale for doing this. That’s where differences – any kind of differences – come into play. It doesn’t really matter what race, religion, language, or nationality you were born into. As a human being, you must accept a cause and take a stand, as arbitrary as it may be or seem. Ultimately, you will be called to and must decide to kill for your cause (nation, race, religion) or you will be killed by someone else who is willing to fight for his. You must take a stand for your cause, or you will surely die for someone else’s.
When cheap energy is gone, America will quickly disintegrate. Its population is now too large to subsist on low-energy agriculture. The country will fractionalize as quickly as Yugoslavia did after the collapse of the Soviet Empire. In 1981, Joel Garreau wrote a book entitled, The Nine Nations of North America. Seventeen years later, that book is not far off the mark in identifying the likely states of North America when cheap energy is gone. Those nations are: Hispanic Florida and the Caribbean; the Hispanic southwest and Mexico; French Quebec; the Pacific maritime; New England; the industrial east; the south; the plains; and the nonmaritime west (the Rocky Mountains, midwestern and western Canada, and Alaska).

The population of North America is now too great to support with preindustrial agriculture. When abundant land and cheap energy are gone, the issues will be who will be master, who will be slave, and who will be dead. "

[qualia1234]

Comprehensive downscaling in all our activities, from farming to business to schooling to governance, will be the categorical imperative of the years ahead. It is in this social economical and geopolitical backdrop and within this kind of macro-economical environment that we will live out the rest of our (probably short) lives. What we make as our priority is still and always up to us, as long as we are still living... But there will be many prevalent and dominant macro level themes that will be presented to us forcibly. Themes like "Point of diminishing Returns", "Cannibalism", etc... What works (methods, tricks, ingenious ideas) in times of plenty will invariably fail one by one most ironically in times that we need these fallback policies to hold the most.

It is all related to Energy, Peak Oil, Population, EROEI and Darwinistic survival. There is no one and nothing to "blame" except for the way nature is.. Again if only people had a true understanding of the way "life works" we could have seen the writing on the walls.

Not to get too political (politics is after all just the control and play of power, which has its real roots in physics and energy rather than the abracadabra of psychology and sociology) But Obama is just more of the same. Sameness we can bereave in! Although Obama's policies appear to be better than Mccains (or at least the lesser of two evils..) they are both pre-chosen candidates by the multinational corporate conglomerates, the Zionists of Israel that America supports, the military industrial complex, the power elite, the banking systems, etc etc and none of them would have made it this far if they REALLY at the core of their being allied with the common people and challenged the status quo. (I would loved to see Ron Paul as president but we all know that would never have happened...) Obama and Mccain are the same... This is the ILLUSION of choice this game and dance the government plays with its people every four years to give them false hope for false change and placate the masses under the pretense and lipservice of democracy and freedom.

Watch the free video of "Dr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy" for more information on why it is mathematically proven that we as a entire species have PEAKED and its all downhill forever from here... The reality is this nation and the whole world "as we know it" is coming to an end soon. This is because of our overshot world population, rapid energy and resource depletion, unsustainable exponential-growth way-of-life, our Ponzi Pyramid / Fiat Monetary system, Peak Oil & 'Olduvai Gorge Post-Industrial Stone Age' & the nature of man and the laws of Darwinism. During really hard times all the backup, reserve and contingency plans will fail one by one, the worst aspects of human nature will be exposed, a lot of bad will happen to good people. Life will be short, nasty & ruthless.

Again it is imperative to be able to see the bigger picture and the trees AND the forests and realize that every is interconnected with everything else... and everything we have done is for survival and it is this epic "struggle of existence" that carves out the terrain of everything else, all the multifaceted disciplines and interests, emotions and array of feelings and behavior and characteristics etc...


So what does all of this have to do with LOVE? Everything above was just to lay down the groundwork so as to be able to put LOVE in context of everything else. LOVE , like life, does not exists in a vacuum and has no independent and separate existence of its own.. From the physical biological standpoint again one only has to look as far as "evolutionary darwinism" to explain and understand all the inner workings of this thing that we call "love"... When we do so we will find there is no "magical essence" to this thing that we call love, and its all the same under the sun, nothing new or "different" at all categorically speaking from any other emotion or drive of man/woman in that it serves the exact same principle, the one eternal driving force of all life: survival .

However there is another more interesting and ineffable version and perspective of LOVE that IS ironically independent of anything and everything else, and this is specifically the qualia (what-it-is-likeness of first hand subjective innermind experiencing/feeling) of how it feels to love or be in love or fall in love that runs perfectly parallel to the chemical and physical counterparts of being in love with DOES depend on energy, survival, etc...

Basically the subjective feeling of how it feels to be in love, the qualia of love and the metaphysical, spiritual and "essence" of love is what most of us are REALLY interested in...

So the question all boils down to how can we find this love, how can we keep this love, and basically how can we live our lives to maximize this love and our experience and intensity of it to make it as strong as possible for and lasts as long as possible?

Anyway what I meant to say was LOVE (like any other emotion pleasant and pleasurable or not..) cannot be captured in words and even pictures and photos and memories and past experiences are mere representati​ons of a person or relationship or essence frozen in time... When we trace back to the source of all of this and find out what it is really about, it us actually about us, about our modes of perception that are capable and wanting of experiencing​ how it is to feel a certain sensation or experience. Eventually the self comes to the realization that so called "extern​al desires"​ are actually internal and constant and that constant is eventually reduced to nothing at all. This is the purpose of meditation and prayer, to come to an equilibrium and arrive at the center of the highest level of experience. When we accept that as truth, we realize that LOVE is our basic nature when we are freed from all the chains of the world and our captive programming by tradition, society, and peers since birth... Inner bliss, true happiness and real love always resonates and comes from WITHIN. Even when we think we are in love with someone else that LOVE is actually a kind of nurturing and healing "self love" that we sublimate back to ourselves in a kind of biofeedback loop. Ultimate love is really just SELF LOVE, but I am referring to the highest most noble kind (not to be confused with selfishness which isn't really love at all!!)

But of course its still good to find someone else (a counterpart, someone other than the self as a referential point) to help us achieve this level of love and comes to terms with our nature.

Everyone just wants to find a rare connection or something real, beautiful, lovely or alive or be made to feel a certain way or whatever, we want what we want because that is a mirror reflection of the nature and essence of who we are. Who we are is incomplete until we find the catalysts to proper us to come to an emotional and mental equilibrium,​ where we can rest and abide in the solace and deliverance and we fully satisfied and content in just "being"​ without attachment to any more external wants or desires, no more needs and drives to always do the next thing, one more time, one more experience, one last go of it... When we TRULY find 'ourselves' we find EVERYTHING.

What are some basic guidelines in finding love? Well since I've never been in love it would be like the blind leading the blind but I think I have some thoughts and ideas on the subject.. ::

As human beings we are limited mortals with limited resources, limited time, energy and life. So it is imperative that we PRIORITIZE. What is MOST important to me in my life? When push comes to shove what will I always put as NUMBER ONE in my life? What will not be "offloaded" during times when I have to choose between LOVE and something else? What will I sacrifice for and what will I NOT sacrifice? In order to know the answers to this we must first deeply introspectively come to terms with knowing intimately ourselves and our real desires, goals, and priorities in life, who we really are, what we really want, etc etc...

We also need to list, define, enumerate, qualitate, quantitate, categorize, prioritize, and hierarchize these different range of human emotions and know what is most important truly to us. To me it makes sense to put LOVE above all else because I have figured out LOVE is the stronger bond of them all...

[qualia1234]

My whole posts can be summed down into this one statement:

Interpersonal Dyadic Relationship is the strongest and most rewarding relationship possible in all of life!

If we ever are lucky enough to meet our Twinsoul/Soulmate then we will know in that moment with the highest "knowing" possible that truly NOTHING else matters... Not some religion or church, not country or nation, not race or gender, not career or education, not job or money, not other hobbies or interests, BUT EACH OTHER. To just bask meditatively, endearingly in the presence of each other, so infinitely simple yet ineffably and sublime compelling and pleasurable... At this level it is ABOVE mere LOVE, it is a form of bonding, the ultimate union between two souls as they merge and interwingle into one essence where there is no beginning and no end!

Humans are by nature social creatures. Life is multi-varied and there are many "unit levels" of life... Our individual "cells" have a life of its own and we are its "government"... When we are sick we take medicine that will kill off a lot of bad as well as good cells, but we are willing to sacrifice a part of the citizens (good cells) to save the larger whole because we care more about "our" "unit level" (the entire human being) than each cells at their respective "cellular" level.. Likewise if a wife sends his husband off to fight a foreign war and he gets killed the family will be hard to "understand" "WHY" it had to happen to THEM. Because for the wife their (she and her husband) "unit level" is the dyadic interpersonal relationship (two people group) and the larger bigger picture doesn't matter when your lover is dead... (unit level of country, nation...) The world still goes on, so what did he sacrifice for?? Again this is why governments are willing to time and again do "false flag operations" even knowingly and purposely kill a small fraction of its citizens in the name of greater good for the entire nation... The government operations at the unit level of the "national unit level" so it only cares about itself... So ask yourself all of you who are thinking about joining or signing up for enlistment, if you are doing it out of a sense of duty, why? Each unit level NATURALLY cares about ITSELF THE MOST! Your government is willing to sacrifice YOU to further its cause, why are you so dumb and volunteering? Likewise the reverse is true as well, people die of allergic reactions all the time... Oversimplified but basically its because your immune system and specifically individual cells within your body are 'selfish' and only care about its only "unit level" and its own survive at the expense of the entire body! So your cells kill you! (receiving transfusions of the wrong blood type or post GVHD is an example...)

As we are all men/woman boy/girl (and not cell, organ, community, nation, humanity, etc...) the strongest basic and default "unit level" is the dyadic man/woman, husband/wife, soulmate/twinsoul group.... all else is from a truism point of view, secondary and tertiary.

But what happens when say we fall out of love (or vice versa) or other significant other cheats on us or they are killed in an accident and pass away ? Ignoring all else these are still problems that haunt and confront us all from time to time... How do we deal with this? What is the optimum solution?

For example how long is a widow/widower expected to "wait"/"mourn" before moving on? And if they don't, do they stay single "in name only" because of some sense of guilt or obligation to persevere the memory of the deceased loved one? Is this fair on them? And if they DO move on and still say they "will never forget" their formal partner is that also in "name only" or are we capable of loving multiple people at the same time? Does this make sense?

Or what if we get married but later on meet someone who is a "soulmate"? How do we choose? What is the "right" choice? Either way in a love triangle at least 2 hearts are going to get broken, (most of the time its all three) so is there an optimal choice or is it simply whatever "feels most right"? Does analyzing it from a top down perspective really help?

What about a conflict of interest or conflict of desire? What if one partner puts career, friends, hobbies and interests above love and above the relationship/marriage?
What to do in this kind of scenario?



// will update laterz

[qualia1234]

reserved for future updates

[qualia1234]

reserved for future updates.

END OF ALL PARTS 5/5

[IndiReloaded]

Not sure if you are aware, but many theoretical physicists agree that Penrose has kind of 'lost it' with his quantum theory of consciouness and such. I've read Shadows of the Mind. Its not very good, IMO.

Just saying.

BTW, Qualia is a very nice resort in the Whitsundays.

[ecojeanne]

I think you would get more responses from a philosophy forum. Wow you must have read all that stuff I gave you in the earlier thread. My mood has changed lately and I’m not feeling so thoughtful lately I’m more; just enjoy. I may give you a response at a later stage. Btw I like your threads, you seem interesting.

To add; the Whitsunday islands has been my favourite place to visit of all time. Pristine and amazingly beautiful. I spent a week sailing around them.

[IndiReloaded]

The Whitsundays are one of the nicest places in the world I've been to, agreed. Superior to even Mexico, Hawaii, Caribbean. And yes, we've sailed there also, its a terrific place for it.

[ecojeanne]

you see i think the problem with mexico, the caribbean and hawaii is that they are all too commercialised at this stage and thats the difference, i remember being really dissappointed with the cayman islands based on the tom cruise movie lol, i've managed to sail a lot of the caribbean and it's all quite commercialised. i went to cancun and i thought it was beautiful but again too commercialised, hawaii was pretty cool but again same thing except for i think one place was called maui, it was nice and quiet there. thats why imo the whitsundays are one of the most pristine places on this planet (almost untouched), i saw a whale there, unbelievable!

[ecojeanne]

btw anyone who ever has the chance should visit the west coast of australia and see the reef, it's waaaay better then the barrier reef on the east coast, you can go swimming with sharks and all sorts aswell. australia is my favourite country (well its a toss up between that and italy) i have to say; broome was a place i think i might like to settle in one day; i really thought WOW with that place, just sharin' if ever anyone wants to know about the most calming place with great people to settle with; thats it

[IndiReloaded]

When you say 'sail' Eco, do you mean an actual sailboat? If so, what sort? Was this yourself as an adult or with your parents?

[ecojeanne]

no i didn't do the sailing, i'm not into all the hassle, i know how to sail but it's much nicer when someone else does it for you, on a yacht with a crew that does everything. much nicer, my dad is into all that sailing so its been a thing in my family

[IndiReloaded]

Cool. I'm asking b/c we've been wondering how our son might handle living on a boat for 6 - 12 months. Did you ever do this? He's done shorter trips but not liveaboard for > 1month. Our family also sails, tho we like to do our own. A retired relative just got back from Antartica on their custom built (he's a retired pilot) & they had a great trip. We'd like to copy.

LOL, if the OP ever comes back we'll have to get back on topic. Shrug.

[ecojeanne]

wow that sounds really cool, bit scary tho, you just don't know what happens, i wouldn't ever do it without a crew, i know i'm a pansy, but no that takes guts