Properly speaking, only you exist, apodictically if you insist, while all others are only inferred. The implications of this two-tiered ontology pose no problems until desire is at issue. Desire is yours, but the object of desire is not; the object can be enjoyed by anyone, and if it is enjoyed by another it is not available to you. So it is not enough to have the desire, you also must have the entitlement to its object. Your enjoyment of the object is not only satisfying but also is good - not an absolute good, admittedly, but a relative good, where there is no clear line between relative and absolute. Your entitlement, such as it is, is a social fact, and so is of an entirely heterogeneous nature to your ontological priority, and yet somehow the two must be linked. A princess is perhaps one who takes the equivalence of these to be axiomatic. Or you could say that the god of your philopsychia is what grants this equivalence. Another version of this is money in its abstract form, or currency, a more or less tradeable form of entitlement to enjoy. But the wealth you seek is in depth of consciousness because in spite of your starting point in apparent solipsism this is, or seems to be, directly communicable, the poet being a more negotiable kind of princess. And which of us is not the laureled poet of our own world?