CYCLE SIXTEEN

1. PHOTOGRAPHY VIS-À-VIS FILM. Whereas monochromatic photography corresponds to the Clear Light ... on the basis of a Hindu purism rooted, so to speak, in superfeminine idealism, colour photography is a quasi-submasculine 'bovaryization' of the Clear Light ... relevant, so I contend, to Buddhist naturalism. Conversely, where colour film corresponds to the Clear Fire ... on the basis of a Satanic purism centred, as it were, in submasculine naturalism, monochromatic film is a quasi-superfeminine 'bovaryization' of the Clear Fire ... relevant, so I maintain, to Judaic idealism.

2. BLUES SINGING VIS-À-VIS JAZZ PLAYING. One could argue, similarly to the above, that where female blues singing corresponds to the Clear Light ... on the basis of a Hindu purism rooted, so to speak, in superfeminine idealism, male blues singing is a quasi-submasculine 'bovaryization' of the Clear Light ... relevant to Buddhist naturalism. Conversely, where male jazz playing corresponds to the Clear Fire ... on the basis of a Satanic purism centred in submasculine naturalism, female jazz playing is a quasi-superfeminine 'bovaryization' of the Clear Fire ... relevant to Judaic idealism.

3. SUPERFEMININE VIS-À-VIS SUBMASCULINE. What we can infer from the above parallels ... is that where photography and blues singing are rooted in Hinduism/Buddhism, film and jazz playing are centred in Judaism/Satanism, the former pair either superfeminine or quasi-submasculine, and the latter pair either submasculine or quasi-superfeminine. One can also infer from the above that while Buddhism is rooted in Hinduism, the older and more primal manifestation of Superheathen mysticism, Judaism, by contrast, is rooted in Satanism, since the Jewish concept of primal being takes a masculine form, the form, namely, of Jehovah as 'Creator-God', and to take a masculine or, more specifically in this context, quasi-superfeminine form ... the God in question must be rooted, so I contend, in a submasculine culture such that takes its cue not from light but from fire, that submasculine and hence Mosaic element. Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism does so, and it is hard to imagine a Buddhist, much less a Hindu, ever seeing 'God' in a 'burning bush', the way Moses evidently did. Yet the Hindu/Buddhist sensibility can no more abandon photography or the Blues ... than the Judaic/Satanic sensibility can abandon film or Jazz. Even the male approach to blues singing is only quasi-submasculine by dint of the superfeminine essence of the Blues, just as, from the converse standpoint, the female approach to Jazz (never more culturally correct than when employing saxophone as opposed to trumpet) can never be more than quasi-superfeminine on account of the submasculine essence of Jazz, a music no less centred in the Satanic fire than Blues is rooted in the Hindu light. Yet it is Jazz, paradoxically, which is basically subdivine or, at worst, quasi-superdiabolic (female sax-based Jazz), while Blues is the music that is either basically superdiabolic or, in the Buddhist 'bovaryized' context, quasi-subdivine (male blues singer). The Judaic psyche is more to be admired for being centred in the subdivinity of the Clear Fire ... than is the Hindu one for being rooted in the superdiabolism of the Clear Light. Even a quasi-superfeminine concept of primal being, as signified by Jehovah, is fundamentally submasculine ... to the extent that its correlation is with film (monochromatic) and Jazz (sax-based female) rather than with photography or the Blues, both of which are fundamentally superfeminine, even in the quasi-submasculine contexts of colour photography (Buddhist) and male blues singing, neither of which do adequate justice to primal doing, since extrapolated out from primal being, the supernatural basis of which militates against subcultural naturalism.