Before I waste my own valuable time replying to some this, "sadder", let me compliment you on actually finishing a reply in toto by using only (2?) words for trash bashing. Considering how long your post is, that is quite the accomplishment... pleasant change... although knowing you, I realize it won't last.
Moving on -
Satyr wrote:You are obsessed with my avatar...as any modern, pseudo-intellectual, pop-cultural, automaton would be.
I ignore your avatar, as the result if this simplicity/stupidity.
Obsessed is an exaggeration, something so many use either needlessly or recklessly. I do look at others avatars but only as a curiosity or occasional admiration for some I find quite interesting. Of course, your own avatar is an attention getter but so is your crudeness... your base misanthropy compliments the avatar. But as you know, I do find it rather amusing believing that you think that is a good representation of yourself.
Satyr wrote:You seem obsessed with appearances...
you are obsessed with why and how,...and what makes me tick?
It's good that you ended this sentence with a
I must answer I'm a student of hu'manity... a life-long observer of the condition and reactions of the species. You are no exception to my observational skills I've acquire over many years. As far as my being obsessed with appearances... I am taken by beauty. But most physical appearances, unless I happen across the rare symmetrical features that grab the attention of most healthy people, I find after all these years rather repetitious. It is only that repetitiveness must first be observed as being so before moving on.
What makes you tick? I've already given an extraordinary amount of time in answering... much more than I'd spend on most people. But I feel you have something to learn... how others (may) interpret your activities. So I won't dwell on that any longer on this thread.
Satyr wrote:It's a way of dealing with fear; with insecurity. I cannot fault you for that.
by "it's" I assume you're referring to appearances and/or what makes you tick..? That's been satisfactorily answered above.
Satyr wrote:You cannot fathom abstraction.
I'm an artist and I create abstractions, having been heavily influenced by other practitioners of the art, i.e. Kandinsky, (the father of abstraction), Dali (who isn't in some way?), the prolific Picasso has influenced thousands including myself, Mondrian, Miro, Klimt... the later modernists deKooning, Rothko and Jackson Pollack... recently I find the works of Dan Namingha (a Native American) to be fascinating.
So when you say -
Satyr wrote:]You are governed by looks, though you profess to be above them
.
It's what you would like to think... Any artist of any medium is 'governed by, not necessarily 'looks' but more accurately, "composition"... the end result of a balance which gives reason and purpose to any art.
Satyr wrote:I suspect that you are easily impressed with immediate impressions and totally governed by pop-culture.
Again, a willful exaggeration on your part for an otherwise fair observation. Remove the adverbs 'easily' and 'immediate' and even 'totally' as I'm not known for such absolutes, and I may then not call you wrong. It is important to know that pop-culture is not so much my forte as it once was. My age has prevented me from appreciating so much of the art from our current times.
Satyr wrote:A pretense, fake as it might be, has a profound affect upon you. you denounce appearances as s"superficial', as a way of dealing with your own appearance and the effect it has upon others, but you are still governed by it, because you cannot escape its premises. You only denounce its affects upon you, but you cannot overcome its foundations.
You are torn - schizophrenic - part of you buys into the ideal, is soothed and comforted by it...but you are still a victim of it and a contributor to it.
Sorry, Satyr, but this entire assumption is simply that, an assumption that is based upon no solid foundation.. Schizophrenic? Are you attempting to hurl insults at me with that one? Please, don't embarrass me with that level of your skills in observation.
Satyr wrote:You have seen the movie - even if it is diametrically other than the book - but you have not read the book. If you have or if you have not does not matter; the movie will dominate your sensuality. you are totally given in0t the sensual...though you tell yourself and you pretend to be above it....unaffected by it - an enlightened one.
Satyr wrote:You are a female, through and through.
...
and you are my bitch...? Come on, you can do better than that...
Satyr wrote:If and when you do read the book by Harrison you must ask yourself:
- Why is Hannibal born with six fingers?
- Why does he display traits above the average?
- Why does he devour those you would call "human" and what types does he kill, and what does he devour of them?
Why is he, despite the gore, the most noble part of the movie?
- Why does he only attack, or bully, the bullies in an institutions?
What is a "bully"?
- Why does the Hollywood version, meant to be sold to morons, like you, differ from the book version?
Why does the movie differ from the book?
I really have no time in my schedule to indulge myself in a fictional novel, not that I'm sure you find it a strong and powerful read.
You are obviously totally captivated by it and borrowing from you, "I suspect that you are easily impressed with immediate impressions and totally governed by (a now passed) pop-culture", i.e. this book was once current and influential in the pop-culture of the times. Your attachment to the book and the author's story is still as new today as it was with you when it was first released, it's rather obvious. And although "Silence of the Lambs" was written by Tom Harris some 24 years ago, that matters little to the fans who read more into the novel than Mr Harris intended. Timelessness has a sense of the sacred to those who refuse to allow the past to remain in the past.