CYCLE FORTY-THREE

1. METHODOLOGICAL VINDICATION. Since I began this book with the subject of Blues and Jazz, I am going to end with that subject - not, as should be evident, because I have any great fondness for or affiliation with Blues or Jazz, but because I am only now in a position to resolve it in a completely truthful manner. In fact, that is the way my philosophy and, I would guess, all serious attempts to achieve a definitive truth with regard to any given subject really works. For truth, or, in this case, the truth about a particular subject, is far more complex and difficult to arrive at than most so-called 'professional philosophers', with their mind cocked to commercial presentation, would have us believe, and I have never sought, neither here nor in any of my other principal philosophical works, to convey a contrary impression!

2. BLUES SINGING AND PLAYING. That said, it behoves me to confess that, whilst I was right to align Blues with photography and Jazz with film, I was quite mistaken to make such an alignment synonymous with vocals on the one hand and instrumentals on the other, since, in reality, the distinction between, say, monochromatic photography and polychromatic photography is precisely one having a musical parallel with blues singing and blues playing, given that singing is equivalent, with its vacuous basis in the light, to monochromatic photography, while playing, by contrast, connotes with polychromatic photography by dint of its fiery, or quasi-fiery, essence. In other words, while the Blues does indeed connote with photography and Jazz, by contrast, with film, we need to distinguish between light and lightfire with regard to the one, as between fire and firelight with regard to the other, since such a distinction is crucial to an appreciation of how and why these contrary modes of music should be subdivided. Hence I have no hesitation in identifying blues singing with the light and blues playing with lightfire, this latter analogous to polychromatic photography, and it is my contention that while blues singing will indeed be most genuinely light-based when a female of superfeminine calibre is singing it, the quasi-submasculine approach to the Clear Fire of Satanism involves blues playing on the basis not of a saxophone but of a trumpet, since it is this instrument more than any other which correlates with lightfire, and hence polychromatic photography. Thus blues playing should be regarded as most genuine when involving a quasi-submasculine female, presumably less of a 'lady' than her vocal counterpart, whose preferred instrument is a trumpet, an instrument arguably more 'feminine' than the saxophone, on account of its higher pitch, more centrifugal appearance, including a lips-against approach to the mouthpiece, more elevated method of handling, and greater antiquity - all factors which would confirm its affiliation with lightfire as opposed, like the saxophone, to fire itself.

3. JAZZ PLAYING AND SINGING. Yet if the saxophone is arguably the most appropriate instrument for jazz playing – as distinct from simply playing Jazz (as opposed, for instance, to the Blues) - by dint of its correlation with the Clear Fire of satanic submasculinity, the instrument itself more 'masculine' than the trumpet, on account of its phallic-like shape, deeper range of pitch, lips-around approach to its mouthpiece, more centripetal appearance, less elevated method of handling, etc., then the quasi-superfeminine approach of Jazz to the Clear Light can only entail a parallel with firelight and, thus, jazz singing, which is surely the mode of Jazz most correlative of Jehovah. Hence whereas jazz playing would imply a correlation with polychromatic film, jazz singing would be its monochromatic counterpart, a counterpart as much Judaic as playing is Satanic.

4. SEXUAL PARALLELS OF BLUES AND JAZZ. Thus it is that Judaism 'sucks up' to Hinduism, like a monochromatic film vis-à-vis a monochromatic photo, when a man is singing Jazz in what will be a quasi-superfeminine 'bovaryization' of Jazz towards the Clear Light, the latter of which, in sexual terms, would be a standing superwoman, presumably habituated to saris or some such superfeminine mode of attire, being penetrated from behind in the sexual equivalent of a pyramidal triangle, whereas Blues 'flirts with' Jazz when a woman is playing the Blues in a quasi-submasculine 'bovaryization' of the Blues towards the Clear Fire, and Buddhism would accordingly appear to be in hot pursuit of Satanism, like a polychromatic photo vis-à-vis a polychromatic film - the analogue with kaftans and a face-to-face approach to noumenal heterosexuality, in which the couple are seated with their legs intertwined in a 'Star of David'-like posture, being only too obvious.

5. LAST RITES. Now no-one could convince me that such a conclusive, not to say inclusive, statement concerning Blues and Jazz would have been possible without the earlier theories, no matter how flawed or partly flawed they may have been, and for this reason I have not attempted, like a 'professional philosopher', subject to commercial pressures, to retroactively 'hype-up', by revising over, those theories, but will leave them in situ as a testimony to the gradual unfolding of truth with regard to this subject towards its final working-out and consummation here. This is assuredly the last rites for Blues and Jazz, and people can draw their own conclusions as to what it means when a man sings the Blues or plays Jazz with a trumpet or, conversely, when a woman sings Jazz or plays the Blues with a saxophone!