The solipsism insanity

[Ranger]

I am not dictating definitions. I hope you don't take my comments personally. They are not intended as attack. My goal is clarification. I could just as well tell you not to read my post/s. What good does that do? We are trying to communicate clearly and reach an understanding of how things actually work to improve the quality of our lives. My goal is clarification based upon the actual meaning of the terms.

We are not that far apart actually. I am simply pointing out that solipsism is TYPICALLY and most widely used to point to philosophical error, especially those of an epistemological nature, namely that relying solely on one's own thoughts makes communication impossible. It makes scientific statements impossible. It makes the application of science impossible.

Solipsism is radical idealism and relativism. This is where you get wacky ideas like transgenderism and postmodernism, totally anti-scientific ideas, literal delusions masquerading as valid forms of existence or thought.

Here is a decent starting point for an understanding of solipsism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#cite_note-maar-2

Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ ( listen); from Latin solus, meaning 'alone', and ipse, meaning 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

I understand completely your communication. It is a word that best describes the ability to be completely shut off from external input and defaulting to inherent drives and biological survival commands. (Revision: No. The ability to not even recognize external impetus due to biological commands) It would be much deeper than let’s say an engram.
If you have a word to best describe unconscious commands that are influential to the actions and considerations of the person, please give me that word.
I’m not a supporter of leftist ideals and I don’t have an aversion to using the same word. Selfishness is not a reasonable common denominator despite the ideas of Kant, Jung or any other philosophical genre.

 

[Ronin47]

As far as older women's attractiveness, I too am skeptical about how attractive a 50 year old woman would be to men in their 20's or even early 30's. I think even men in their 40's would be attracted to women in their 20's or perhaps 30's. 50 year old women are going to attract the attention of men who are 60+. For the most part. There may be a few outliers here and there of course, but men generally prefer women in a narrow age band (18 to 30 typically), regardless of the age of the man.

There are some women who age very gracefully. I think of Ann Coulter. She never tells anyone her age, but she's probably in her early 50's. She looks great, especially for her age. Laura Ingraham is a beautiful woman. She is in her early 50's as well. However, if you look at a close up, she has many many fine lines. TV makeup hides a lot of that. It's definitely possible for white women to age gracefully. Asian women and Black women are said to age the most gracefully, but perhaps this trait is overstated. I know lots of Asian women in their 30's who look like they are in their 30's. Most black women are so fat it doesn't even matter whether they are less likely to wrinkle.

Anyway, this post is a bit longer than I had anticipated so I'll just leave it to others to chime in.

Im 47. Still prefer 18-23 y/o. Theres been a ****load of research on this done by the red pill group. Female peak SMV is 18-23, full stop.

 

[BeExcellent]

I wish you would stop using that term because you clearly don't know what it means. "Selfish" or egotistical or immature are far more apt in this case. I hate it when people misuse terms they clearly do not understand, and apparently no one else uses the term correctly or understands what it means either.

Generally speaking it refers to a philosophical error, a position which is hopeless epistemologically and scientifically because solipsism prevents any possibility of scientific insight or even communication or dialogue. Radical idealism and perspectivalism, the foundation for postmodernism, liberalism, communism, transgenderism and all forms of relativism, are extremely destructive and ultimately based upon the solipsistic lie, i.e., that truth cannot be known and that science therefore is impossible. Solipsism in a nutshell is radical idealism and relativism. It is anti science, anti truth, and anti certainty. It is a completely unsustainable position practically speaking, although probably a fun idea to spin around in your for a few minutes if one is so inclined.

Again, you are talking about a totally different issue. You are speaking to alleged character defects on the part of females. These are well documented, and utterly destructive to any prospects for a stable civilization of any kind. Gynocracy is proven destructive, witness Teresa May, Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton and just about any and every female "leader" you can think of. Anyway, just wanted to correct you there so we are all aware of what we are actually talking about.


As far as older women's attractiveness, I too am skeptical about how attractive a 50 year old woman would be to men in their 20's or even early 30's. I think even men in their 40's would be attracted to women in their 20's or perhaps 30's. 50 year old women are going to attract the attention of men who are 60+. For the most part. There may be a few outliers here and there of course, but men generally prefer women in a narrow age band (18 to 30 typically), regardless of the age of the man.

There are some women who age very gracefully. I think of Ann Coulter. She never tells anyone her age, but she's probably in her early 50's. She looks great, especially for her age. Laura Ingraham is a beautiful woman. She is in her early 50's as well. However, if you look at a close up, she has many many fine lines. TV makeup hides a lot of that. It's definitely possible for white women to age gracefully. Asian women and Black women are said to age the most gracefully, but perhaps this trait is overstated. I know lots of Asian women in their 30's who look like they are in their 30's. Most black women are so fat it doesn't even matter whether they are less likely to wrinkle.

Anyway, this post is a bit longer than I had anticipated so I'll just leave it to others to chime in.

Utterly correct about use of the word. Contextually incorrect.

As far as my appearance yes I'm very physically attractive. I avoided the sun since age 20, my skin has plenty of oil so remains supple, I have long thick, straight healthy natural blonde hair down nearly to my waist which I never ruined with hair dye or perms, I stand at 5'6" and weigh 118. That's a BMI of 19 or 20. I'd have to do the math. I have a slender athletic build & mesomorph musculature so I keep definition. I was a high school & collegiate soccer player...I still play some & do sprinter's track workouts to keep everything firm. I also do light free weight lifting & a short machine circuit. My legs are long & shapely. I have a natural 36-24-36 figure (no surgical help needed) and nothing is droopy. I have blue eyes. I turn every head in a bikini.

My ex husband considers me a 9+, a millionaire I wasn't interested in thinks I'm a 10 (and told me so), I have modeled here and there in runway locally and for the occasional gig over the years when I've been asked. Paparazzi have chased me in LA thinking I'm someone famous and I've had men photograph me in airports and other places without my consent as I go about my business.

I used to get approached constantly and told I was a ringer for Rebecca DeMornay. I have aged MUCH better than she has. I'd say I look like her with a fair bit of Taylor Swift thrown in.

Look I'm lucky. My parents were beautiful people. So were my grandparents. My father nor my grandmother ever went gray. They both got a cool skunk stripe over their right temple in old age. My granny lived into her late 90s but looked 70. So I got great genetics. I've also lived very healthy, get plenty of sleep and take great care of myself.

So I'm HB 8+ in my own opinion, even though the numbers given above are recent. Big Neil used to do photo feeler with all these young 20 somethings he used to date. He took the black & white avatar I used and put it on photo feeler. It came back rated 98% attractiveness. (This was Neil's silly thing to do but the raters are neutral & don't know age or any of that). Neil posted the result here on SS somewhere. Many men think I'm very pretty without makeup, and I usually don't wear any. Some men I've dated preferred I wore no makeup at all, including a NYC cosmetic dentist I dated years ago.

The men I date are very attractive. As am I.

So yes I do have the perspective of a very attractive woman. When you add the cool personality, the self assurance and the life experience & wisdom plus the fact that I'm done with babies? I have more men interested in me than I can shake a stick at. It's a lovely problem to have but I prefer to select one man and explore that in depth rather than the headaches of dating ad nauseum. Before I married I always had full calendars if I was not in a LTR. It's no different now.

My BF is 2 years younger than I, very attractive (tall dark & handsome) but everyone thinks I'm more than 10 years younger than him.

The avatar? That's me last holiday season. And it's not filtered at all. Cropped but not filtered.

So yes I'm legit in the looks dept. Why that's so important I don't know from a commentary standpoint, but it is what it is.

I'm well aware looks matter to men. I'm also blessed in that area through luck but maintain through healthy lifestyle.

 

[Ranger]

Utterly correct about use of the word. Contextually incorrect.
.

Ok let’s say that it is. Please submit the correct word to describe “the ability or malady to not even recognize or even register an external impetus due to biological/genetic commands.”

 

[Ranger]

Might I interrupt milady? You forgot to add that you have humble, modest, good and honest heart but don't you worry, my queen,

I just did it for you.

LMAO
Unless I’m mistaken, women don’t get to decide their market value. Men do. That’s how bitter cat ladies are born.
Get on Facebook. Take 200 pictures. Post the best two and the flood of worshiping turds flood them with adoration and love. A new princess evolves. Now she can even walk on water.
Fat girls get hit on all day long. Just ask them how precious they are. LMAO

 

[meldiamond]

Ok let’s say that it is. Please submit the correct word to describe “the ability or malady to not even recognize or even register an external impetus due to biological/genetic commands.”

I would be more blunt and just say women are just too dumb, immature, impulsive, irrational, yes selfish and egotistical to lead any society.

Their place is in the home as mothers, caretakers, cooks and homemakers. They can probably play some limited role in public life in charities or other extended caretaking roles, but as it generally goes, one thing leads to another and they will want even more of an influence on the broader society as a whole.

 

[Ranger]

I would be more blunt and just say women are just too dumb, immature, impulsive, irrational, yes selfish and egotistical to lead any society.

Ok. That could work and would be true at the same time.

 

[meldiamond]

As to solipsism, which is defined as the thought or theory that the self is the only thing that can exist...aka extreme egocentricity.

This is not quite correct. It is not a theory that the self is the only thing that CAN exist, it is the position that one can only be certain of one's own thoughts and therefore one's own existence.

As I have stated before, this is radical/extreme idealism, i.e., we can ONLY know thoughts. Second, we can only know our OWN thoughts, not anyone else's Third, we can not be certain that the material world exists, since any external reality is processed by and within one's own mind.

This is not a question of being egocentric, it is an attempt to lay philosophical epistemology on grounds of absolute certainty. It's an interesting thought experiment, it is a move to establish absolute certainty, and is not bad in either sense.

However, it is extreme to the degree that it totally fails to acknowledge how much consensus is possible in actuality. We see the same things. We can use the same words. Common, general knowledge, of a reliable, practically applicable scientific nature is in fact possible.

As a result, the solipsistic extremism was abandoned by everyone in favor of more moderate versions of idealism such as Husserlian phenomenology, the systematic study of subjective experience free of the limitation of total certainty, which in turn ultimately gave rise to sociological ethnomethodology, which sought to categorize PRACTICAL modes of understanding as they served to help us get through practical, daily activities. Of course, there are other branches of sociological theory which are similar, and I don't claim that ethnomethdology or interactionism more generally speaking are widely accepted as foundational to the field. However, they are useful aspects of social theory as long as their biases and intellectual history are acknowledged and understood.

Again, I don't mean to write this as an attack on anyone's knowledge, just as a minor correction for the record so we can all move forward with a better understanding of the terminology being used. Please proceed.

 

[BeExcellent]

Might I interrupt milady? You forgot to add that you have humble, modest, good and honest heart but don't you worry, my queen,

I just did it for you.

Thanks. I am those things in spite of your sarcasm. But I only defer to men who are capable of leading me. No one on this thread is. And I'm not dating anyone on here anyway so truly none of that matters.

You'll find my content consistent throughout my time around here. That consistency is the best indicator of truth gentlemen. Do your research & see for yourself.

You guys insult (she must be ugly) and then goad me for bragging. Too funny.

It ain't bragging if it's true. And what I have said is true. You guys want pics? You already have one. I'm not providing more. What a riot.

Off to an event. Enjoy your evening folks.

 

[BeExcellent]

This is not quite correct. It is not a theory that the self is the only thing that CAN exist, it is the position that one can only be certain of one's own thoughts and therefore one's own existence.

As I have stated before, this is radical/extreme idealism, i.e., we can ONLY know thoughts. Second, we can only know our OWN thoughts, not anyone else's Third, we can not be certain that the material world exists, since any external reality is processed by and within one's own mind.

This is not a question of being egocentric, it is an attempt to lay philosophical epistemology on grounds of absolute certainty. It's an interesting thought experiment, it is a move to establish absolute certainty, and is not bad in either sense.

However, it is extreme to the degree that it totally fails to acknowledge how much consensus is possible in actuality. We see the same things. We can use the same words. Common, general knowledge, of a reliable, practically applicable scientific nature is in fact possible.

As a result, the solipsistic extremism was abandoned by everyone in favor of more moderate versions of idealism such as Husserlian phenomenology, the systematic study of subjective experience free of the limitation of total certainty, which in turn ultimately gave rise to sociological ethnomethodology, which sought to categorize PRACTICAL modes of understanding as they served to help us get through practical, daily activities. Of course, there are other branches of sociological theory which are similar, and I don't claim that ethnomethdology or interactionism more generally speaking are widely accepted as foundational to the field. However, they are useful aspects of social theory as long as their biases and intellectual history are acknowledged and understood.

Again, I don't mean to write this as an attack on anyone's knowledge, just as a minor correction for the record so we can all move forward with a better understanding of the terminology being used. Please proceed.

No disagreement. That was the definition posited by a dictionary. Not me. I didn't post the link to it.

I understand the philosophical intent/meaning of the word. Which is why in my first post in this thread I noted, just as you have, that the word is not being used correctly.

 

[Ranger]

My posts stand as is.

 

[meldiamond]

I was watching and listening the Kavanaugh hearings yesterday.

That crazy b#tch Ford was sippin on a soda spouting her lies like it was a walk in the park.

Kavanaugh was fired up, hurt, produced a mountain of evidence, exact records of his activities and whereabouts, and absolutely every last person who was supposedly at the party in question stated under oath under penalty of felony that they were not at the party Ford claimed they were at.

But Kavanaugh said something interesting, quite telling. We are not automatons. We are blessed with intuition. That is, we rely on common sense, on intuition: we ask ourselves, does that person's testimony have the ring of truth?

In Kavanaugh's case, yes. He acted like a man who had been wrongly accused. He had overwhelming evidence that everything Ford said was a lie on top of that. And Kavanaugh had literally been begging to give testimony while Ford initially refused to do so.

The question I have is about the way you describe yourself. You describe yourself as essentially perfect in every way. This style and pattern of self description does not have that "ring of truth." Instead it reeks of the same negative, caustic, mutually destructive female traits we have painstakingly outlined: female egocentricity and duplicity in particular.

This is for the most part an anonymous forum. None of us post photos and even if we did no one has any way of verifying them. There is zero verification process. No vetting. There is in effect zero reliability or corroboration of anything we say about ourselves. Therefore, all we can rely on is very limited information and again, on our intuition. Our internal sense of whether a story has that "ring of truth."

For example, I have met many, many, many, many, many women who are in their late 30's and early 40's and are still attractive. Just about all of them are married. They are typically being taken care of by sugar daddies in wealthy suburbs. They HAVE to maintain their beauty, or their men would step out on them, and their fairy tale lifestyle would end.

While it is theoretically possible, I have not met many women past the age of 45, especially caucasian women, who look youthful without the help of cosmetic surgery, injections, heavy makeup or all of the above.

Look at this recent photo of Charlize Theron. She's only 43. She has clearly had some work done. She has certainly had botox injections. Probably some collagen fillers. Perhaps a face lift and rhinoplasty. She is still a beautiful woman. But her face looks unnatural as she attempts to hide the aging process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlize_Theron

However the signs of aging were evident far earlier, in her early 30's with many fine smile lines around the eyes and the mouth. They're evident even with a lot of foundation.

https://www.plasticsurgerypeople.com/charlize-theron-cosmetic-surgery/

She has the benefit of the top stylists, makeup artists, and plastic surgeons and yet very clear signs of aging are unmistakably apparent by her early to mid 30's. Her annual budget for health and beauty and style is likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In the case of Charlize Theron, an icon of beauty, with essentially limitless resources to combat aging, clear signs of aging were evident early 30's, unmistakable by her late 30's and her attempts to stave off the aging process has led to overuse of cosmetic procedures leading to an unnatural, artificial look in her early 40's.

But let's set aside your appearance. I don't know what you look like. What about your description of your personality. You describe yourself not with only every positive trait possible but with endless superlatives.

Every person has flaws. Every person falls short in some way. You however, portray yourself more as a goddess rather than as a human being.

This does not have the "ring of truth."

tl, dr. You're full of sh#t. I don't mean this as a personal attack but common sense dictates that your posts are not reliable due to your extreme egocentricity and probably dishonesty as well.

Thanks. I am those things in spite of your sarcasm. But I only defer to men who are capable of leading me. No one on this thread is. And I'm not dating anyone on here anyway so truly none of that matters.

You'll find my content consistent throughout my time around here. That consistency is the best indicator of truth gentlemen. Do your research & see for yourself.

You guys insult (she must be ugly) and then goad me for bragging. Too funny.

It ain't bragging if it's true. And what I have said is true. You guys want pics? You already have one. I'm not providing more. What a riot.

I was watching and listening the Kavanaugh hearings yesterday.

That crazy b#tch Ford was sippin on a soda spouting her lies like it was a walk in the park.

Kavanaugh was fired up, hurt, produced a mountain of evidence, exact records of his activities and whereabouts, and absolutely every last person who was supposedly at the party in question stated under oath under penalty of felony that they were not at the party Ford claimed they were at.

But Kavanaugh said something interesting, quite telling. We are not automatons. We are blessed with an intuition. And that is, does that person's testimony have the ring of truth?

In Kavanaugh's case, yes. He acted like a man who had been wrongly accused. He had overwhelming evidence that everything Ford said was a lie. Kavanaugh had literally been begging to give testimony while Ford initially refused to do so.

The question I have about the way you describe yourself: essentially perfect in every way, does not have that "ring of truth." Not to mention we have no idea how anyone would describe you. This is not exactly reliable testimony.

Thanks. I am those things in spite of your sarcasm. But I only defer to men who are capable of leading me. No one on this thread is. And I'm not dating anyone on here anyway so truly none of that matters.

You'll find my content consistent throughout my time around here. That consistency is the best indicator of truth gentlemen. Do your research & see for yourself.

You guys insult (she must be ugly) and then goad me for bragging. Too funny.

It ain't bragging if it's true. And what I have said is true. You guys want pics? You already have one. I'm not providing more. What a riot.

Off to an event. Enjoy your evening folks.

 

[Ranger]

I was watching and listening the Kavanaugh hearings yesterday.

That crazy b#tch Ford was sippin on a soda spouting her lies like it was a walk in the park.

Kavanaugh was fired up, hurt, produced a mountain of evidence, exact records of his activities and whereabouts, and absolutely every last person who was supposedly at the party in question stated under oath under penalty of felony that they were not at the party Ford claimed they were at.

But Kavanaugh said something interesting, quite telling. We are not automatons. We are blessed with intuition. That is, we rely on common sense, on intuition: we ask ourselves, does that person's testimony have the ring of truth?

In Kavanaugh's case, yes. He acted like a man who had been wrongly accused. He had overwhelming evidence that everything Ford said was a lie on top of that. And Kavanaugh had literally been begging to give testimony while Ford initially refused to do so.

The question I have is about the way you describe yourself. You describe yourself as essentially perfect in every way. This style and pattern of self description does not have that "ring of truth." Instead it reeks of the same negative, caustic, mutually destructive female traits we have painstakingly outlined: female egocentricity and duplicity in particular.

This is for the most part an anonymous forum. None of us post photos and even if we did no one has any way of verifying them. There is zero verification process. No vetting. There is in effect zero reliability or corroboration of anything we say about ourselves. Therefore, all we can rely on is very limited information and again, on our intuition. Our internal sense of whether a story has that "ring of truth."

For example, I have met many, many, many, many, many women who are in their late 30's and early 40's and are still attractive. Just about all of them are married. They are typically being taken care of by sugar daddies in wealthy suburbs. They HAVE to maintain their beauty, or their men would step out on them, and their fairy tale lifestyle would end.

While it is theoretically possible, I have not met many women past the age of 45, especially caucasian women, who look youthful without the help of cosmetic surgery, injections, heavy makeup or all of the above.

Look at this recent photo of Charlize Theron. She's only 43. She has clearly had some work done. She has certainly had botox injections. Probably some collagen fillers. Perhaps a face lift and rhinoplasty. She is still a beautiful woman. But her face looks unnatural as she attempts to hide the aging process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlize_Theron

However the signs of aging were evident far earlier, in her early 30's with many fine smile lines around the eyes and the mouth. They're evident even with a lot of foundation.

https://www.plasticsurgerypeople.com/charlize-theron-cosmetic-surgery/

She has the benefit of the top stylists, makeup artists, and plastic surgeons and yet very clear signs of aging are unmistakably apparent by her early to mid 30's. Her annual budget for health and beauty and style is likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In the case of Charlize Theron, an icon of beauty, with essentially limitless resources to combat aging, clear signs of aging were evident early 30's, unmistakable by her late 30's and her attempts to stave off the aging process has led to overuse of cosmetic procedures leading to an unnatural, artificial look in her early 40's.

But let's set aside your appearance. I don't know what you look like. What about your description of your personality. You describe yourself not with only every positive trait possible but with endless superlatives.

Every person has flaws. Every person falls short in some way. You however, portray yourself more as a goddess rather than as a human being.

This does not have the "ring of truth."

tl, dr. You're full of sh#t. I don't mean this as a personal attack but common sense dictates that your posts are not reliable due to your extreme egocentricity and probably dishonesty as well.

Self analysis is a luxury that a woman cannot afford.
Only men are actually capable of it. It runs up against her programming. Men self debase. Women do not unless skillfully applied. Garnering the efforts of a white knight or deflecting an accusatory attack. Etc.
However, analyzing others is a adept SOCIAL skill.

 

[meldiamond]

It's hilarious. Beexcellentatlyin ironically proved just how egotistical and dishonest women are in her very attempt to debunk the fact that women are inherently egotistical and dishonest.

She was too stupid to realize that even adding just one very minor flaw in her self description would have made the entire charade believable, at least potentially. Instead she got greedy and tried to portray herself as the perfect angel and gave the entire game away.

 

[rber]

Utterly correct about use of the word. Contextually incorrect.

As far as my appearance yes I'm very physically attractive. I avoided the sun since age 20, my skin has plenty of oil so remains supple, I have long thick, straight healthy natural blonde hair down nearly to my waist which I never ruined with hair dye or perms, I stand at 5'6" and weigh 118. That's a BMI of 19 or 20. I'd have to do the math. I have a slender athletic build & mesomorph musculature so I keep definition. I was a high school & collegiate soccer player...I still play some & do sprinter's track workouts to keep everything firm. I also do light free weight lifting & a short machine circuit. My legs are long & shapely. I have a natural 36-24-36 figure (no surgical help needed) and nothing is droopy. I have blue eyes. I turn every head in a bikini.

My ex husband considers me a 9+, a millionaire I wasn't interested in thinks I'm a 10 (and told me so), I have modeled here and there in runway locally and for the occasional gig over the years when I've been asked. Paparazzi have chased me in LA thinking I'm someone famous and I've had men photograph me in airports and other places without my consent as I go about my business.

I used to get approached constantly and told I was a ringer for Rebecca DeMornay. I have aged MUCH better than she has. I'd say I look like her with a fair bit of Taylor Swift thrown in.

Look I'm lucky. My parents were beautiful people. So were my grandparents. My father nor my grandmother ever went gray. They both got a cool skunk stripe over their right temple in old age. My granny lived into her late 90s but looked 70. So I got great genetics. I've also lived very healthy, get plenty of sleep and take great care of myself.

So I'm HB 8+ in my own opinion, even though the numbers given above are recent. Big Neil used to do photo feeler with all these young 20 somethings he used to date. He took the black & white avatar I used and put it on photo feeler. It came back rated 98% attractiveness. (This was Neil's silly thing to do but the raters are neutral & don't know age or any of that). Neil posted the result here on SS somewhere. Many men think I'm very pretty without makeup, and I usually don't wear any. Some men I've dated preferred I wore no makeup at all, including a NYC cosmetic dentist I dated years ago.

The men I date are very attractive. As am I.

So yes I do have the perspective of a very attractive woman. When you add the cool personality, the self assurance and the life experience & wisdom plus the fact that I'm done with babies? I have more men interested in me than I can shake a stick at. It's a lovely problem to have but I prefer to select one man and explore that in depth rather than the headaches of dating ad nauseum. Before I married I always had full calendars if I was not in a LTR. It's no different now.

My BF is 2 years younger than I, very attractive (tall dark & handsome) but everyone thinks I'm more than 10 years younger than him.

The avatar? That's me last holiday season. And it's not filtered at all. Cropped but not filtered.

So yes I'm legit in the looks dept. Why that's so important I don't know from a commentary standpoint, but it is what it is.

I'm well aware looks matter to men. I'm also blessed in that area through luck but maintain through healthy lifestyle.

Personally I see no reason to doubt that it's indeed an accurate description of yourself and your life, and frankly I think it's of no relevance (no offense intended) and shouldn't be the focus of the conversation.

As attractive as you might be for your age, I doubt you'd be able to compete with a good looking young girl in terms of looks.
I can definitely see how older men living by the "blue pill narrative" (which would be almost everyone) who look for a life companion would go for you rather than for a hot chick, since you'd be the more "respectable" choice in that scenario, and frankly have far more added value.

You use the current narrative of the society to your own advantage, I can respect that, but a red pilled man judging smv based mostly (or entirely) on raw looks will never see you as attractive as a young hot chick and for "red pill reasons" will always choose the younger woman.

Don't forget that the attention you're getting, whether from successful people or not, comes from blue pilled men living within a certain narrative which almost entirely / entirely conflicts with the red pill point of view.
Since the way you judge a woman's value is reinforced by a different narrative than the one of red pill men - there's likely to never be a true agreement on your actual value.

I think these dynamics should be taken into consideration in the term "smv", since market value derives from supply and demand. If for whatever reasons (blue pill narrative in this case), against their raw nature, older men might prefer a woman their age to a young hot babe, that in itself increases her value in the market.

That aside, success is success, and if you truly live the life you described then good for you, whether it'd due to the dominance of the blue pill narrative or not.

The truth is that the current blue pill narrative in the world supports you, your belief system and the value you believe you have - your value is as high as it's perceived by others - or rather that's where you can draw the distinction between price and actual value. There are far more blue pill men than red pill men, which statistically gives you a real edge in the way you're estimating your value, to the discontent of any red pill men I suppose.

That aside -

Wouldn't you say that any woman who answers to such a description is entirely an exception to the rule? How many women who have the whole package at this age exist? Whether it's in upper circles or not.

I don't think I've ever seen even one woman who answers to your magical description.
True as your description of yourself might be, you'll agree that it's subjective, and also that for obvious reasons you didn't take into account your flaws.
As a result you pretty much drew an image of "Mrs. Perfect", which is easy to see as inauthentic, but I can understand where you were coming from and the point you were trying to make.

I've seen women of upper circles - filthy rich and successful, pretty (usually artificially at older ages, far from young hot babes), intelligent, etc, but never the whole package. Not even something that comes close to that. The older the age the more apparent the deficiencies in a way, to my observation. (not just in terms of looks)
i.e. ugly and intelligent, pretty and dumb, all around decent but not great, etc.
Also I noticed that more often than not, upper circles marry within themselves. A successful man marrying an ugly girl who comes from a wealthy family speaks for his own perceived pool of options rather than for her intrinsic high value.

 

[meldiamond]

You are incorrect. She does not portray herself as Miss Perfect (not Mrs. as she is a divorced, single mom).

She describes herself as an angelic goddess. Literally a female Jesus Christ, perfect in every way.

This is the type of delusion which has become frighteningly commonplace in the western world, and probably, sadly in other parts of the world as well.

I'll find it later, but there's a clip of Steve Harvey, Oprah Winfrey, and a middle aged, homely, fat black woman. The fat black woman is looking for her match. She goes over a list so long, so preposterous in it's characteristics, that one could only conclude that the only match good enough for her would be Jesus Christ himself.

Then again, Jesus probably wouldn't live up to her standards, either.

If an extremely fat, below average looking, middle aged Black woman has impossible standards, what are the standards for an average or above average looking white woman? They must be so far fetched that she cannot possibly ever be satisfied.

As we've stated many times before: women of the western world today are absolutely delusional and literally believe they are goddesses. This is zero exaggeration. Just read the posts beexcellentatlyin has posted in this thread alone! Total delusion.

They believe our only role is to worship them. Vid below:

 

[Ranger]

She was too stupid to realize that even adding just one very minor flaw in her self description would have made the entire charade believable, at least potentially. Instead she got greedy and tried to portray herself as the perfect angel and gave the entire game away.

You could kneel her over a ditch with a gun to her head and it wouldn’t make any difference. She is utterly incapable of thinking that way towards herself. You? Yeah she could apply that to you easily. It’s a program!!!!
She has incorporated her preciousness since the day she was born. It’s in her at possibly a cellular level. The thousands of cucks out there have reinforced it.
She’s not stupid. She’s not egotistical. That’s linear thinking. She running on a self survival program. She can’t even see it. Not at an abstract level. Not in the abstract. It’s impossible. You would have to yank her back into a third world civilization and let her rewiriing pop her into the Stockholm effect. Then she would be back in action, completely remolded for the new paradigm.

 

[meldiamond]

Beexcellentatlyin reminds me an awful lot of this christine Ford hoe.

Christine Ford can sit before Congress and lie through her teeth for hours on end under sworn testimony and not even flinch. How is this c@nt not in jail for perjury?

Likewise, beexcellentatlyin can post on ss thousands of times for years on end rattling off a litany of lies and bullsh#t even more easily since it's all anonymous.

This is the true character of a woman:

1) endless deception and lies,

2) total inability to accept responsibility

3) total rejection of morality

4) principle aim is to be so c@ntlike stupid and irritating so as to force a man to punch her in the face and put her back in her place

5) if a man cannot stand up to a weakling of a woman and keep her in line she will then attempt to proceed to destroy him with relentless humiliation with total ruthlessness and no remorse whatsoever.

Again, she will not stop until she is brutally beaten back into submission.

The only solution to all of this is hijab, western sharia and beating women silly until they finally conform. And they will love every minute of it.

 

[Ranger]

Beexcellentatlyin reminds me an awful lot of this christine Ford hoe.

Christine Ford can sit before Congress and lie through her teeth for hours on end under sworn testimony and not even flinch. How is this c@nt not in jail for perjury?

Likewise, beexcellentatlyin can post on ss thousands of times for years on end rattling off a litany of lies and bullsh#t even more easily since it's all anonymous.

This is the true character of a woman:

1) endless deception and lies,

2) total inability to accept responsibility

3) total rejection of morality

4) principle aim is to be so c@ntlike stupid and irritating so as to force a man to punch her in the face and put her back in her place

5) if a man cannot stand up to a weakling of a woman and keep her in line she will then attempt to proceed to destroy him with relentless humiliation with total ruthlessness and no remorse whatsoever.

Again, she will not stop until she is brutally beaten back into submission.

The only solution to all of this is hijab, western sharia and beating women silly until they finally conform. And they will love every minute of it.

Lol. I can see your point.
What I’ve learned so far is that battling a woman is completely her frame. The whole kit is in her frame. That is where she is skilled. Her programming is almost flawless. Even after beating her, there will be plots and bl@wjobs to have you undone by your enemies.
You never truly see a woman until she is attracted to a man. That’s when you actually see her.
She doesn’t even really see beta men when she’s walking around. They don’t exist. Until she needs something from one.
You are getting mad at a machine with breasts and a pvssy.
That is why Spaz’s “dismissive of women” is so brilliant. So utterly brilliant that it still astounds me.
You don’t interact with a computer. You tell it what you want it to do and if it doesn’t, you scrap it.
You dismiss a woman until she is ready to show you her real self. She becomes a woman again and is wanting you. That’s a woman.
Every single word out of her mouth is a test. A pre programmed screening program. Go back and look at her assertions again and now catch all the screening jargon. Screening to get men to unselect themselves.

 

[meldiamond]

LOL, a terminator with titties.

But yes, women don't have souls in the same way that men have. They're more a bundle of reflexes responding to various stimuli in the environment: lights, sounds, smells, food, wine, good looking men, fat ugly men, cocaine, shoes on sale, whatever. They move in the direction of pleasurable stimuli and veer away from unpleasant stimuli. But these are just reflexes. A woman can't take into consideration morality, she doesn't take into consideration what's in the long term interest practically or morally of anyone, not herself, not her family, and certainly not of society. Everything for a woman is about whimsical interest, fleeting pleasures and the emotional roller coaster ride all of this brings.

It's almost like skynet is a metaphor for feminism. Once it's unleashed, it attempts to take over all of humanity and the result is apocalyptic warfare between female terminators with titties and real human men trying to restore civilization.