The Rolling Stones discography (Introduction)

 

The Stones are coming!

And whatever you may think of them, you’ve got to admit that this is pretty amazing. Looking back over what the unprecedented 50-plus years’ body of work that this group has managed to produce, there’s no question that it is a colossal and mind-boggling achievement, an unparalleled accomplishment of sheer length, breadth, depth, longevity and tenacity.

To be quite honest, when news of the upcoming tour first inspired me to create a comprehensive Rolling Stones critical discography, I really had no idea how large the undertaking was going to turn out to be. But now that I have the basic outline in place, I’m going to commit myself to following it through, though it will be coming to this spot in a series of what I reckon at this point to be eight installments(not counting this introduction).

Will it be absolutely comprehensive? Absolutely not. There’s no way I can possibly trace down every single Rolling Stones release that has been made between 1963 and the present day, even if I limit myself to the UK and the States. There are simply too many oddities, one-shots, here-and-gone specials and outdated (and long deleted) collections to reach anything near a status of "completion", even if I wished to do so. And why should I wish to do so? I’m not into the arcane as much as I am the relevant. And what I have collected here, in chronological order of release, is every single Rolling Stones studio album, live album, single, and compilation that - as far as I can tell - is still current in their catalog and available for consumption. That does not include bootleg material ("official" or otherwise), videos, or download-only packages.

Critical discography rationale and theory

Why am I doing this? First of all, I enjoy making discographies - I’ve done it since I was a kid, and I thought, what the hell, why not? And I have definitely been having fun with the project. Even someone who has been a fan of the group for so many decades can be surprised with all the material that has hitherto gone unnoticed or at least under-scrutinized. To say the least, I’ve uncovered a lot of surprises.

 

Secondly, I actually considered the possibility that someone just might find such an exhaustive list, ready at hand with a few critical/historical notations useful - or if not, perhaps mildly amusing to peruse.

 

And as for the so called "critical" aspect of the project, let me just point out first of all that that was not the chief point or aim of the discography. I have my own perspective of the Stones and their work, but I am much more interested in documentation than in criticism, most of which I find too subjective to be of much service to anybody. My research (along with many years of listening and reading about the group) has produced what I consider to be a fairly consistent consensus about their best work, and I prefer to document that rather than to challenge it. For in the final analysis, what I am most interested in seeing created - as I do in any art form - is a reasonable and helpful canon of an historical nature to assist the enthusiast and collector to make the most productive and enjoyable use of his or her time.

 

I think that by this point, the "critical mass of consensus" has pretty well developed and solidified around the Rolling Stones. What I have tried to do is to reflect this overall sense of critical and popular judgment as fairly and impartially as possible, while still carrying a deep subjective love (and respect) for my subject. So if anyone has any strong disagreements about my overall assessments - and some certainly will - well, that’s just fine with me. No pronouncements about art can pretend to be absolute. Just realize that I am attempting to present what I feel is the most "objective" reflection of what appears to be that consensus as possible, as filtered through my own widest critical categories.

 

This last point brings up the question of my rating system. I debated long and hard whether or not to even include one, and I finally decided that there must be some structuring mechanism to give the whole project a sense of balance and meaning. I have decided to adopt what seems to be the cultural default of the five-star rating system, as much as I dislike it, as I find it too easy to abuse with to great a degree of subjective taste. (What makes one critic’s two-star rating more valid than another’s four-star assessment is usually a baffling mystery to me.) My ratings, therefore, are designed with very specific purposes in mind, and I would like to explain them as clearly and as succinctly as possible. But first, I've got to get a few things out of the way.

Peculiarities of rating the Stones

First of all, since my primary interest (as far as critical rating goes) is to form what can be seen as a widely accepted critical canon with broad agreement and appeal, I have chosen to adopt the four-star rating as a general critical standard. When I give a particular work four stars, what I am saying, is that this particular artifact (in this case albums - I do not rate singles) has demonstrated a level of quality and relevance to be considered a canonical part of the cultural tradition in which it participates. (In other words, it is an "excellent" rating). To demonstrate, right off the bat, how broadly I use this rating as a critical paint brush, let me go ahead and confess my decision to grant every Rolling Stones studio album with a four-star rating or better. Why? Simply because they are the Rolling Stones, they are one of the greatest and most important groups in popular music history, and though some work is clearly superior to others, they have maintained a consistent level of quality throughout their long career. I simply do not see any original Rolling Stones album that I can say, without question, measures any less.

Now, you may feel free to disagree with me. Some people, I am aware, think that some (even a good many) of their albums are garbage. Fine. Taste is relative. And there are certainly some albums that I rate at four stars that I believe are clearly much more personally preferable to others. But I’m not going to become didactic about it. There is simply too much room for personal variance in reaction and judgment to begin any kind of argument that I would consider profitable on any level. While I would definitely hold an unusually creative oddball gem like Between the Buttons several leagues higher in my own estimation than a comparatively dull, late-career effort like Bridges to Babylon, the fact remains that both of these albums are nearly equivalent in their critical/historical ramifications: that is, they are both top-notch, professional collections of then-new music by one of the greatest bands on the planet. Unlike many other popular artists, I do not consider the Stones to have made any "below industry standard" material, unlike many of their peers (Bob Dylan, the Who, the solo Beatles, etc.). There are no titles (I think) that I would find myself debating whether or not I would want to have in my collection, no matter how much more I would prefer one over another. In short: I believe that all the Rolling Stones’ original studio albums are equally canonical. Now, while that doesn’t mean that I think you should own them all, it does mean that if you did, I would consider you to have a pretty great Rolling Stones collection.

Still, most of us will have to pick and choose. This is especially true for the first several years of the groups’ career, when - like the Beatles and others - the UK and US releases differed significantly and produced a great deal of overlap. Decisions should be made here, and I will definitely be addressing this topic.

Moving on to the question of live albums, however, I absolutely do not see anywhere near the same level of quality, consistency and essentialism in this wide section of the group’s catalog that I do in their studio recordings. Why this is, I cannot say, but I can at least note a good deal of redundancy. It is a bit puzzling to me, as well, since - as anybody who has seen the group live can tell you - they are one of the greatest live rock bands on the planet. Why then do they have so many mediocre live albums? (There is only one of the entire lot that I would grant four stars - though I would give none of them less than three.) Is it one of those cases of "you had to be there?" where the true excitement of the performance is essentially lost in the process of recording? Or can it be that whoever makes these selections for release has consistently bad judgment? I honestly don’t know.

Once again, some degree of subjectivity enters into this question as well - some fans may find some of these live albums as absolutely magnificent, the brightest blossom of the band's sound. Common consensus says no, however, and my ear concurs. Too often the Stones sound fat and flabby on concert discs, though occasionally they "catch fire." Of course, I could just be jaded, being unfairly influenced by the attitude of "here we go again" when I listen to these discs. Still, I don’t find it worth arguing about, and with the exception of 1970s astonishing ‘Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out!’, I do not find any Stones live albums essential, and therefore canonical. I consider them, rather, as "auxiliary" pieces to the center of their collection and I advise as such. All those who disagree with me should certainly feel free to hear it their own way.

Finally, we have the question of compilation albums - the number of which this group has is literally astonishing. I can’t think of anyone this side of Elvis to have more repackages to their credit. And since almost all of these albums contain extraordinary music, it’s a little difficult to dismiss any of them out of hand. But nobody (except a compulsive collector) is going to want or need all these titles. So the question becomes: which compilations are most definitive in representing the band as defined over different parameters of time, sense and sensibility?

While we will go over each of the major compilations as they arise, I’m going to address them directly as we start out, as how one chooses to view the group’s history is going to be determined by all sorts of personal considerations, as well as the actual facts of the band’s recording history. Just note, however, that I do not give more that four stars to any Rolling Stones compilation. And the basic reason for that is that I find that none of them are unconditionally perfect for every collector. Now, on a personal level, while I find 1989’s 3-disc set Singles Collection: The London Years to be worth as many stars in the firmament, and I would never want to be without it, I cannot say that every Stones fan needs every single A-side and B-side from 1963 to 1971. For many people, this would just be overkill. So, while I still consider it (and pronounce it) the best purchase possible, I can’t unconditionally say it’s for everybody.

Okay, now that I’ve got that preliminary junk out of the way, just what do my star ratings mean?

My rating system

««««« - Five stars indicates a work which is not only universally regarded as canonical, but has established its place in our culture (with my blessing) as one of the finest representatives of its particular style of art available. I do not give five-star ratings often or lightly, and when I do, I mean to say that this album possesses such value that it should be regarded as essential for any person who is collecting musical popular music. These are the touchstones around which our musical world is built, they are the essence of the canon, and they should be in every serious collector’s possession. Ignorance of these titles can legitimately be argued to be a serious lapse in one’s total educational and cultural profile. The must be purchased and fully absorbed for one to be a total civilized human being. (To quantify it to some degree, I would say that these are roughly considered the 100 greatest popular music albums of all time.)

«««« - The four-star rating is the one you will find most often in my discographical system. The reason is simple. It indicates that the album in question is good or historically significant enough to have earned a place in the Popular Music Canon through the "critical mass of consensus", as well as my (sometimes reticent) approval. These are "excellent" albums, though not every person might think so. If one does not particularly care for a given artist or genre, for example, such a designation is really rather meaningless to them. But these are albums that I believe, have demonstrated their value and vitality - often over a long time - to critics and fans and are well deserving of at least a listen. Likewise, if one is an enthusiast or fan of some critically neglected artist, one would argue that their ratings should be inflated. What can you do? I’m doing the best I can here. (Quantitatively speaking, I would say that this rating would roughly apply to the greatest 1000 popular albums ever.) Obviously, the ultimate goal of life is to collect all the 5-star and 4-star albums that exist, along with the 3-star albums from your favorite neglected, under-appreciated artists.

««« - Three stars for me might mean five stars for you. This rating is reserved for basically two categories of albums: 1) Works that are generally considered to be substandard for a particular artist of worth. These could be highly valued by devoted fans of some particular artists; 2) The average work of average talents. They neither inspire nor disgust. They line the walls at the entrance to Dante’s hell, though they do not play inside. (Once again, if this is an artist that is particularly resonant to some individual - or perhaps even a large number of individuals - who am I to say that they are wrong?) These albums simply do not have the "critical mass of consensus" needed to be considered canonical. I do not look down on them - I think of them as "adjuncts".

«« - If there are only two stars given to an album, something really went wrong somewhere. Either I cannot escape the fact that this is purely mediocre crap, or the album’s concept was in some way so flawed of ill-conceived that it is difficult to fathom. Still, there may be those who find a special fascination with it or perhaps require it for a "completist" purpose. You won’t find me giving many of these.

« - I don’t give one-star ratings. If I consider something that is this negligible, I am most likely going to simply ignore it. There is plenty of pure crap out there, and I don’t see any reason wasting my time (or anybody else’s) in even addressing it. I know that some crap is very popular, but that doesn’t make it less crappy. (And by crappy, I generally mean trite, formulaic, cookie-cutter product that is simply designed to sell to the non-musical individual for the sake of tastelessly ornamenting their drab lifestyles.) I’m sorry, folks. I believe in subjectivity and personal taste, but we have to draw a line somewhere.

On certain occasions, I will not give a rating at all. This does not mean the album is worthless. It might, even perhaps, be a stellar addition to someone’s collection. The absence of a rating or score simply indicates that there are multiple conceptual hurdles that this package presents that I do not feel I can give an adequate, overall assessment that would provide anything close to a universal consensus. These are quirky, oddball albums. Just read what I have to say and make up your own mind.

Collecting the Rolling Stones

Building a comprehensive, satisfying Rolling Stones collection is nothing if not challenging. And constructing anything close to what might be called "definitive" is well-nigh impossible without falling nearly into a "completism" that is constructed of the worst kind of massively jerry-rigged corporate sinkholes concocted (accidently or otherwise) for any major artist on this side of Elvis.

There are quite a number of reasons for this situation, most of which will become obvious as we travel through this collector’s guide, but fortunately, there are some well-trodden pathways that can lead you right to the heart and core of the group and its best, most significant work. If you trust me, hang on and pay close attention, I promise that I can show you the best strategies for approaching this group’s enormous, convoluted catalog. I can scout out the way for you, and make my best recommendations. However, it is you that will ultimately have to make the final decisions for the approach that is most appropriate for you.

Basic strategy

Now, there are many fans (or aspiring fans) who would like to approach the group’s entire work chronologically, which is only a natural thing to do, especially for those who are prone to the pleasures of discographical history. And I will show you the various options for doing so, along with the inherent complications involved. But the history and variety of the Rolling Stones’ output (and packaging) covering a period of more than 50 years, makes me recommend a different path, particularly for beginners (or near-beginners), and there are some very good reasons for this:

l The Rolling Stones’ musical output is, undeniably, and particularly when personal taste and time preferences are factored in, considered to some degree variable. Only their most rabid supporters are going to want to consider collecting anything approaching their entire catalog - especially as difficult as that is.

l However - There is a widely recognized consensus as to the core of what is considered their best, and most essential work, at least in album formats. And it is in this area that I recommend that most (if not all) collectors begin.

l On the other hand - The Rolling Stones are one of the greatest "singles artists," not only of the 1960s, where so many artists made some of their most profound statements, but indeed, of all time! Not only are there such a large number of individual songs from this period that I would consider absolutely essential for any proper music collection, but indeed, this is one group who would continue to consistently produce high points, well along into the later years of an increasingly more erratic career. So, in order to provide a proper balance for their unquestionably classic albums, no Rolling Stones collection is going to be in any way acceptable without resort to some kind of compilation - and in my view, it should probably be more than one. But, as we shall see, there are so very many ways that the Stones are collected and compiled, that choosing between them is a very careful craft, taking into account factual content, historical significance, as well as private taste. Make no mistake about it - decisions must be made!

l Finally, it should be pointed out, that the Rolling Stones have one of the largest selections of live recordings to choose from (well, not from a Grateful Dead fan’s point of view) of any major rock group. There are (mostly) widely varying assessments of many of these albums’ quality, historical necessity (and thus canonicity) of many of these collections. There is also the question of whether they should be considered along with the other Rolling Stones albums, or should they be seen as an auxiliary sub-genre in themselves? We will leave this question open for the individual to decide, while approaching them in both manners and contexts. (I have already clearly given what I believe should be considered the lower-level ranking of their relative status.)

Now, of course, the considerations listed above are only in play for those of us who insist on having hard-copy collectibles in our actual possession, and at this point in time, that means compact discs. (Those who are of the neo-vinyl persuasion, I would only recommend a handful of the Stones’ greatest albums for this sort of pricey purchase.) If, however, an individual is satisfied with a purely digital collection, then acquiring the Stones song by song can make the entire enterprise vastly easier in many respects.

However - I must sternly warn everyone (as indeed I will do in regards to every significant albums artists) that part of the Rolling Stones’ recorded glory consists in their magnificent, holistic, conceptualized wonder of their albums as they were originally intended and released. I may be sounding picky and old-fashioned here, but a great many albums of the album age gain much of their brilliance do to their particular organization as well as their content, and they cannot be truly appreciated and enjoyed in part and partial any more than a great novel or a film can, and moreover respect should be shown for the artists’ intent.

So, with all those little insights and caveats in mind, I think we should feel free to proceed.

The great Rolling Stones albums

As I intimated before, one can start here or one can start with singles, but sooner or later, these magnificent specimens are going to come heavily into play, so we might as well get started with them right away.

To begin with, there is almost universal consensus that the Rolling Stones reached an extraordinary height of maturity, combined with a dialectic that resonated as strongly with their own time and cultural context, in the period of 1968-1972. During this time, they produced four consecutive studio albums that are as highly regarded as anything ever produced in the rock era. I submit that these four albums are the absolute core, not only of every Rolling Stones collection, but also represent a very significant part of the core of any modern music collection, period. It is my recommendation, therefore that these four albums be purchased first by any serious music fan:

Beggars Banquet (1968)«««««

Let It Bleed (1969)«««««

Sticky Fingers (1971)«««««

Exile on Main St. (1972)«««««

These are unquestionably great albums, and they represent the absolute height of the Rolling Stones’ mature artistry. They should be owned and listened to intently by everybody. And I should also point out that they gain in perspective and power by listening to them chronologically, as the group’s artistic vision expands to its fullest and most beautiful and grandiose expression on their 1972 masterpiece, which all the sane world regards as "the greatest rock ‘n’ roll album of all time." These four albums should not only form the core of one’s Rolling Stones collection, but also one’s listening. In the largest sense, everything else the group has ever done - before, since, or between - only finds its ultimately appropriate resonance in relationship to these four staggering individual statements of purpose. (Of course, we shall discuss each album individually, once we make our way through the entire chronological catalog.)

In addition to - please note the term "addition" - to these four milestones, I would unhesitatingly add two more Rolling Stones albums to the list of "absolutely essential," though they both come from remarkably different time periods and display quite distinct sounds and perspectives.

 
Aftermath (UK, 1966)«««««

Some Girls (1978)«««««

Once again, we will discuss the particulars of these two albums in the chronology section. But let me point out, first of all, that the first title - Aftermath - is, among may of the early Stones’ albums - available in two completely distinct configurations. There is the original UK-released album designed with its own brilliant conception and flawless execution. And there still exists a quite-interesting, but definitely inferior U.S. version that has different artwork, and - more importantly - different tracks and running orders. Be sure to purchase the original UK album.

Some Girls, fortunately hails from a different era where continuity of an album had long been ceded as a given even by the corporations who distributed them for profit. Taken together, however, with the addition of these two gems to the core group above, you will definitely have the best of the Rolling Stones LPs. (In short, Aftermath is their first great album-length statement and a perfect expression of its era, while Some Girls is the later-in-life stunning comeback record that re-assured their immortality.)

We will return to look at the merely excellent Rolling Stones albums shortly, but it is my firm belief that after all these six albums have been acquired, it is definitely time to turn to the collection of singles, something this group is more than well-noted for.

The best compilations of singles

When it comes to compilation albums, the Stones offer more selections, flavors and sizes than any group on earth. Where does one begin? Well, while I have some very strong opinions on that regard, the final decision must come down to the one who is doing the collecting. So, for that individual, I here present what I argue to be the very best Rolling Stones compilations, and will present my arguments, pro and con, for each one:

Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass) (US, 1966)««««
This first selection was the very first compilation of Rolling Stones hit singles, and it not only packs a historical punch with its astonishing concentration of power, but it really and truly does feature virtually all of the Rolling Stones’ great early songs. Big Hits is the music that defined the Stones early on, and it can hold its own very well today. It contains only songs that predate Aftermath, and there will be (no doubt) a class of collector for whom this single-disc collection will suffice to represent the early years of the group. Let us not forget that, even if there is no unqualified Rolling Stone LP masterwork before Aftermath, that "The Last Time," "(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction", "Get Off of My Cloud", and "19th Nervous Breakdown" (among others) are absolutely essential for any serious music collection. This album can easily stand by itself even if one does eventually purchase the individual albums from this period - it is a near-perfect stand-alone portrait of the early Stones. (There is a UK configuration of this title from the same year, which I consider less preferable, but I do not think it is even available on CD.)

Hot Rocks 1964-1971 (US, 1971)««««
The second selection is a different kettle of fish. Released only in the United States at the end of 1971, Hot Rocks provided a two-record chronological summation of the band that displayed their growth from snotty upstarts to absolute masters in a magnificent, effortless flow. This is still an excellent representation of their early years, while adding three post-Aftermath essentials ("Paint It, Black", "Ruby Tuesday", "Let’s Spend the Night Together") and two "classic-era" must-have singles ("Jumpin’ Jack Flash", Honky Tonk Women"). There is some overlap with selections from the core albums, but a "live" version of "Midnight Rambler" (from "Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out!") makes up for that. All stated, this is probably a much more valuable collection than Big Hits, all things considered. (A second edition, More Hot Rocks (1972) is not nearly as vital and interesting.)

(Another alternative is to supplement Big Hits with Through the Past, Darkly (Big Hits, Vol. 2) (1969), which has the latter singles - among some others - to flesh out the entire 1960s. Personally, however, I would rather have Hot Rocks and Big Hits both, since they are each so complete and beautiful unto themselves.)

 

Singles Collection: The London Years (1989)««««

Now we come to the third selection. For my money, the 3-disc collection The Singles Collection is the absolute ideal - and the one Stones compilation that I would not want to be without. (But I will admit to being an obsessive.) This set has nothing less than every single released by the Rolling Stones from 1963 to 1971, either in the U.K. or the U.S., including every B-side! Now, I realize that not everyone will want every B-side, especially if they are buying albums from the ‘60s, but I argue that no other collection gives such a comprehensive overview of the band during this period. Plus, everything is arranged chronologically, and listening to the entire story unfold over time is absolutely astounding. From my perspective, if one has The Singles Collection, along with the six great albums listed above, one will have what amounts to something close to an essential Stones collection. There - that’s what I think!

 

(Once again, muddying the waters, I have to point out here that in 2004-2005, Decca/ABKCO released the same material on three separate box collections entitled Singles, but with two very important differences. First of all, every single (A-side and B-side) is on its own compact disc. And unless one happens to think that this is just "darling," it seems a stupid, irritating and expensive way to get the same music. The second difference is crucial, however - and that is that one of these sets include EPs (three in all) that the group released in England which are not available - at least not in their entirety - in the US. Now, one may consider these marginal - but if one is truly attempting to acquire all the group’s recorded material from the 60s, there is simply no other way to go about it. Personally, I would simply purchase the EP material on digital downloads and say the hell with it.)
 

 

Forty Licks (2002)««««
Now, that brings us to our fourth selection, which is the most recent, and certainly the most popular compilation in the Rolling Stones catalog. 40 Licks is unique in that it is the first Stones compilation to include material both from their classic 60s period on Decca and the hits from the older, longer, classic-rock period as well. And, the eras are separated on two different discs. Now, it is obvious to me at least, that the singles from the first era are more significant, but looking at the contents on disc 2, I have to concede that such songs as "Start Me Up," "Angie", "You Got Me Rocking", "Mixed Emotions", "Undercover of the Night", and "It’s Only Rock ‘n’ Roll (But I Like It)" are, arguably essential or at least near-essential as well. (Don’t worry about the songs from Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main St. and Some Girls - you’ve got those albums!) And isn’t the entire second disc such a beautiful portrait of the band from the 70s on? Why one could almost argue that it is the one essential later-Rolling Stones disc. (Plus, it’s got four songs you won’t find anywhere else.)

Yeah, but look at disc one. It’s got 20 undeniably great 60s Stones hits - all essential. But it’s not in chronological order! For some reason, this doesn’t seem to bother some people. And if you are one of them, then just go ahead. When I listen to a compilation, however, I like (or rather, need) to get a sense of the flow of history. So while 40 Licks just may be the perfect collection in terms of the songs you get, I find it terribly irritating to listen to. Now, of course, in this golden digital age, one could simply recombine all the tracks in their proper chronological order on his or her computer or I-Pad. But if you’re going to do that, why not just purchase all of your Stones songs separately and arrange them just they way they should be? (Well, at the conclusion of this entire discography, I will lay out my pattern as to precisely how to do just that for the entire Rolling Stones collection! But, we’ve still got a lot of material to work through first.)

Looking at disc 2 of 40 Licks, I see what looks like to me, the best, or most definitive post-60s Rolling Stones collection available. The only other one I would even consider is:

Jump Back: The Best of the Rolling Stones (UK, 1993/US, 2004)«««
This has 18 choice hits - but remember, you already have seven of them if you’ve got the essential albums listed above. So, I would go with the 40 Licks package, like most people seem to do. (Of course, if you want to go "whole hog," you could always get Singles 1971-2006 (2011), which features every single - A-side and B-side - that the Stones released in that period. All on 45 mini compact discs! Do not do that unless you’re as insane as I am.

Do you see how difficult it is to put together the perfect Rolling Stones compilation, even after you’ve sorted out the essential albums? (It’s going to get even rougher when we start to go through the 1960s albums, so hold on.) I think there’s an excellent argument for buying any of the four compilations listed above, or any combination. (I have all four of them, and they each serve a different purpose and effect - but that’s me.)

All in all, one must choose what one believes is right for one’s own particular needs. And of course, the perfect Rolling Stones single compilation can be had simply by purchasing every Stones single separately on download. ‘Nuff said?


 

Coming soon: The Rolling Stones, 1963-1964

- petey

Monism, the multiverse, and why we Kant know anything (a continuting series)

Monism

Talking about the Greek Milesian philosophers of the 6th century BCE (Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes), I made the statement that these thinkers are generally considered to be "material monists". That is, they are "materialists" because they believed everything to be made of matter; and they are "monists", in that they conceived of everything as one unity or as composed of one substance.

Now, as I said before, I think that the assertion that the Milesians were, indeed, "materialists" in any dogmatic sense is at best highly questionable. But each of their systems does seem to imply a kind of "monism." And I wanted to look at that concept more closely.

I went ahead and looked up the article on "monism" in Wikipedia to see what all it had to say. I thought that could start us off on some basic ideas that we could then work to clarify and examine more thoroughly. Here is how the article begins:

Monism is the philosophical view that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. The wide definition states that all existing things go back to a source which is distinct from them (e.g. in Neoplatonism everything is derived from The One). A commonly-used, restricted definition of monism asserts the presence of an underlying substance or essence.

Okay, basically it is saying that "monism" asserts that everything, can ultimately be explained by, or reduced to "one thing." This is that great Greek insight (though it’s certainly not limited to the Greeks), that "all is one." Or, to put it another way, these thinkers happened upon the very powerful and all-embracing concept of "Unity."

When we start looking at the world in a large, abstract sense, the notion generally arises that everything that exists all fits together into some kind of enormous, all-encompassing system in which all things works together. There are a number of good reasons for this kind of thinking. I have already pointed out the idea of a dog (or any other living thing) that is composed of different parts. But in the larger picture of things, all these parts work together so that the animal - the sum of all these parts, so to speak - can function as a single entity. And that conception is one of a unity of all these various parts.

And that’s not all. When we look around us, at the world, we begin to notice how everything in reality itself seems to "fit together", to function, as it were, as a colossal whole. In nature, for example, we see how there are vast and multifarious relationships between things in general that keep the world going. There is birth and death, the recurring cycle of the seasons, there is growth and decay. One generation comes along to succeed the previous one. Living things need nourishment - and there is a vast system of different plants and animals that live off one another. Plus, all living things need water, and we get a constant cycle of water sources heating, condensing, forming clouds, then returning back to the earth as rain, so animals and plants can continue to grow. I could go on and on about this, as could anyone. The point is, that even very primitive humans could look at the world of nature around them and see everything as being inter-connected into one giant system of which we are all a part.

So the ancient Greeks didn’t come up with anything unique here simply by forming the notion of a unity in nature, or the world. No, what baffled them is the question: "How can there be so many different things if everything is really just one big thing?" This question, which they pretty much all tried to solve, is known as the problem of the one and the many - or the problem of diversity within unity.

Let’s go back to the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on "monism". There, a distinction is made between a "wide definition" of the term and a "restricted definition". "The wide definition states that that all existing things go back to a source which is distinct from them." See why that’s a problem? How can everything "go back to a source" that’s "distinct" from it? In other words, How can one thing become something else? And not only that - if there was originally only one source, how or why would it ever turn into anything else?!!

Well, that’s what got guys like Thales thinking. I mean, there doesn’t seem to be a very obvious answer to this question. And that’s precisely why his attempted answer - along with the answers of his fellow Milesians - was such a big step to try to think on such a generalized, abstract level.

Now let’s look at the "restricted definition" of the term: "monism asserts the presence of an underlying substance or essence." Whoah! Now, that definition carries with it not only the question of the one and the many and diversity within unity, but it implies a definite answer to these baffling questions. And the very nature of that answer is nothing less than an abstraction at that!

Monism asserts the presence of an underlying substance or essence. Well, what on earth is a substance? And what the hell is an essence?

Let’s take a look:

According to Wikipedia, a substance is matter - anything that takes up space. Hmm. That seems pretty vague. Setting aside for the moment how modern science defines the word "matter," I think we all have a pretty general idea what the term means. But generally, when we talk about matter - and even more so, when the ancient Greeks talked about matter - what we really mean is one kind of matter or another. You know: metal, rocks, water, sticks, whatever. Just the idea of matter by itself is pretty darned abstract.

But we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. What about . . . essence? Okay, hang on:

In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity.

Well, I’m not sure, but I don’t think that the Milesians got quite this far along in their thinking.

You know what this suggests to me? It goes back to what I was saying before about how the Milesians were looking for what has been called a single physis to describe the entire world. And we noticed that Aristotle, writing a good deal later, and a lot of hard-core thinking had been done after the Milesians, called it an arche; or a principle.

I’ve got a pretty good idea that that the notion of an arche - which I’m going to say is something very much like an essence - is kind of an anachronistic notion to pass on back to the Milesians. I’m thinking they were pretty much stuck on the physis level. Which means that they were thinking, in general, about matter (or substance). (Don’t get me wrong - that’s still really advanced for the time.)

And that also explains why the Milesians are so often referred to as "material monists." It’s just that they were thinking in terms of matter only because they had not yet risen to the more "sophisticated" level of thinking about essences or arches or any other such grand abstract ideas. They weren’t asserting that everything was material in the sense that they were denying the existence of anything ideal or spiritual or purely conceptual, or whatever else. They just hadn’t gotten to that level yet. Everything for them was still "full of gods" (whatever that meant), remember? But it was still a big jump to say that everything came about from one kind of matter or substance instead of just going along with Homer and Hesiod and saying "this god made this, and that Titan created that."

I think that as we go along, we’ll see that this kind of "materialistic" thinking among these early Greek thinkers gave the West a kind of "head start" in thinking on a level that we might today call "scientific." Because what we’re going to see as "monism" in the East was definitely more "spiritually oriented" than "material" - and that was going to give things an entirely different shade of meaning and emphasis.

Still, we’ve got people in all parts of the world coming up with ideas that one can describe as "monistic" in one way or another. It makes one wonder. Is there something in the human mind - or even something in nature (or reality) itself that makes us tend to think in terms of a unity? And if so, what does that imply - if anything?

We’ll come back to all this, but let me just go ahead and make a little distinction that I made before. Fast-forward to the present day. We can think about a unity existing in the physical universe. Now, that’s scientific thinking, and really it’s not so very controversial (unless you talk to a select few philosophers of science).

But, wait just a minute. Why don’t you take it just a step further and try to start talking about a unity existing in Being itself! Now, Being itself is a much more general, abstract concept, isn’t it? And the way things are these days in the philosophical world, you just might find that you’ve stirred up quite a fuss with certain critical thinkers. Now there are some very good reasons for that, and we’ll come back to them later. Right now, though, I’d like to go a little further and investigate this monism idea a little more thoroughly.

Wikipedia continues:

One must distinguish "stuff monism" from "thing monism". According to stuff monism there is only one kind of stuff (e.g. matter or mind), although there may be many things made out of this stuff. According to thing-monism there exists strictly speaking only a single thing (e.g. the universe), which can only be artificially and arbitrarily divided into many things.

Now, this distinction may seem a little technical and confusing at first, but if we look at it just a little more closely, I think we can see the difference clearly enough.

"Stuff monism" seems to be asserting that there is only one kind of thing that exists; everything that is, is made out of one shared nature or substance.

"Thing monism", on the other hand, maintains that there is only one existent thing, period. (But could it be made of different "stuffs?")

I think it appears obvious that our Milesian philosophers were concerned, primarily, at least, with the first kind of monism - "stuff monism". Each of the Milesians thought that everything was ultimately made of the same basic stuff. Thales thought it was water. Anaximander thought it was the indeterminate or the apeiron. And Anaximenes thought that it was aer.

This kind of "stuff monism", once again, shows a basic interest in material reality, which in turn could lead later Western thinkers down the road to a more science-based type of thinking, where the ultimate object of thought is nothing more or less than "the material universe" itself.

"Thing monism", is not only larger, but it’s a little more vague of a concept, isn’t it? Here, we’re not addressing what everything is made of; we are, rather, trying to figure out just exactly what everything is, aren’t we? I mean, this is where we start asserting that everything is material, or everything is an idea, or even that everything is an illusion. This just seems to be a bigger, more philosophic idea, doesn’t it?

And perhaps we’ll see that this "thing monism", so to speak, could carry with it some kind of spiritual implications as well. What do I mean by that? Well, let’s just hang on here for a minute before I get carried away in all sorts of directions.

We’ll talk more about "thing monism" later. But what I really want to point out is that either way we look at it, the idea of "monism" itself clearly suggests a unity of one kind or another. And as I posed the question earlier, does not all this tendency to think about "reality" as a whole constructed as a kind of "unity" not suggest something very fundamental about that reality itself? Or at the very least, doesn’t it say something about how our minds relate and respond to that reality?

Now, empirically speaking (that is through the use of our senses or the methods of science), we can’t actually observe such a thing as "unity," can we? No, "unity" isn’t a thing we can observe at all. It’s more of a relationship between things, right? And can we observe relationships?

Hmm . . . It seems like we can observe some relationships. Like, for instance, we can observe spatial relationships: like one thing sitting on top of another. Right?

And we can observe temporal relationships, too, can’t we? Like we can observe one thing occurring after another. Isn’t that true?

Well, what about . . . causality? Can we observe one thing causing another to happen?

Oh, crap. I’m getting carried away again. It’s just that for the idea of "unity" to have any meaning at all, then there has to be some principle of causality at work in it somewhere. I mean things don’t just act in a "unified" manner at random, do they? For something to be a true unity, the things inside it have to be able to cause other things to happen, right? Isn’t that what we really mean by a "unity" in the first place?

Hey . . . maybe - just maybe - the concept of "unity" itself is some kind of transcendent principle that leads us, somehow, to an intuitive grasp of something extremely fundamental and meaningful about the very nature of reality itself!

Aaagh! Forget you read that! That’s bullshit! There’s no way I can prove something like that, and neither can you. So just calm down, goddam-it!

I mean it!

Whew . . .

Okay, there.

No, we can’t prove that some concept like "unity" actually means anything about reality itself.

We can’t even prove that causality exists.

A very smart Scotsman by the name of David Hume taught us that a long time ago, and by golly, he was right. But we’re not going to talk about him right now. (We’ll come back to him, eventually - I promise.) For now, let’s just kind of take it for granted that there really is at least something like what we call "unity’, okay? Just for now.

Hey, after all, we use the concept of "unity" in science all the time, don’t we? When astronomers just look at our solar system (not our whole friggin’ universe, now, but just our crappy little solar system!), they have to make assumptions about how the whole thing works together, right? Every planet orbits the sun in a regular pattern, following self-regulating laws of physics (like gravity), and things like mass and weight have to be taken into account, or the whole thing wouldn’t run smoothly. That’s why we call it a solar system. It is an example of . . . you guessed it: a "unity." It follows steady, predictable principles.

In fact, all of science assumes the existence of causality and predictable, regulatory principles of action in order for things to function at all. So, in the grandest scheme of all things, our most advanced scientific minds look at our entire universe as one, self-contained, functioning system. In other words, the universe itself is a "unity." Wrap your heads around that. (I am not stoned! But it wouldn’t hurt.)

Now. What happens if we extend this principle of "unity" beyond the physical universe? What if we take the intellectual leap to the notion that Being itself, of which the empirical construct that we refer to as our "physical universe" is just a part?

What do I mean? Well, what if there is more than one universe? What if there’s something called . . . a multiverse?

Okay, I’m going to go back to Wikipedia just one more time in this article:

The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the Universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entireity of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes or "alternate universes".

The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationships among the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology, and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternate universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternate realities", "alternate timelines", and "dimensional planes," among others . . .

The multiverse hypothesis is a source of debate within the physics community. Physicists disagree about whether the multiverse exists, and whether the multiverse is a proper subject of scientific inquiry . . . critics . . . have argued that the multiverse question is philosophical rather than scientific, that the multiverse cannot be a scientific question because it lacks falsifiability, or even that the multiverse hypothesis is harmful or pseudoscientific.

Personally, I think that the multiverse is not only an exciting notion, but I believe that it is far more likely to be true than not! But I’m not going to tell you why right now. For the time being, let’s just recognize that there is no consensus within the scientific community that this idea is even a scientific question, let alone true or false.

But even if we take a possible multiverse into consideration, would that, in itself, exhaust the possibility of everything in such a way that we have truly defined or described Being itself?

Hmm . . . what about transcendent Being?

What?

I don’t know. All kinds of things.

Like what?

Like, for instance . . . God?

Oh, shut up!

No, I’m serious. From time immemorial, humanity has postulated the existence of a transcendent dimension of Being, sometimes defining it as God (or the gods), Brahman (we’ll get to that), or even the Platonic World of Ideas (we’ll definitely get to that!). As a matter of fact, there is no cultural tradition on this planet of which I am aware that has not developed some sort of notion of the transcendent . . . something which goes beyond the physical, empirical world that we know through our senses.

And whether a transcendent realm of Being exists or not, it certainly cannot be determined or described (or refuted or "falsified") by the methods of physical science.

So keeping all that in mind, can we ask ourselves: "Is Being itself a "unity?"

Well, according to this guy here, we can ask the question all we want. But we’re never going to get a definite answer:

 

Coming soon: more wacky things to think about!

 

- petey

Going Clear . . .

 

Do humans have an innate tendency to go insane?

I finally watched the HBO movie, Going Clear, about L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology last night. Now, I always knew that this particular organization was somewhat wacko, to use a technical term. But good God! I am sitting there on my couch watching this parade of intelligent adults discuss the long years of their lives that they wasted by devoting themselves fully - and sometimes acting as functionaries in positions of power - to this rich fabrication of absolute nonsense, and I am saying: wtf?

And suddenly I realize that this phenomenon is not at all unfamiliar. During one of the "Church’s" gala events, even the commentator compared it to a Nuremburg rally. And that was a big wait a minute moment for me!

What is happening when intelligent, rational people wrap their minds completely and totally around some sort of fictitious mythology that is so obviously inane and falsifiable, yet they identify themselves with it so strenuously that there is absolutely no shaking them from their completely solidified convictions?

This is a BIG question about the human race, folks, and I know I’m not qualified to answer it. Yes, I can understand (to a degree) a mind so gone awry that it will intentionally fly a loaded passenger plane into a mountain. But groups of people simultaneously flying four different aircraft into buildings to make some sort of vague religious/political statement?

I can somewhat grasp it when an alienated student or a single army doctor goes on a rampage and begins shooting everyone in sight. But a small army of people walking into university dormitories and carefully weeding out 140 young Christians for execution? What?

And this is not limited to so-called "religious" fanatics. How does an entire society accept mass slavery of another race to the degree that it takes the most destructive war in human history to eradicate it? How does a people justify the near-genocide of a native population in the name of "manifest destiny?" How can millions of people be starved, slaughtered and imprisoned in the name of "communal progress?"

And yes, how can one of the most highly developed, sophisticated, civilized nations in the world, almost overnight, succumb to the mad ravings of an ugly little guy with a bad moustache, attack the rest of the civilized world and put six million people of a slightly different cultural orientation to death in organized slaughterhouses?

To quote the late Mr. Frank Z., "People, we is not wrapped tight!"

Oh, I know, I’m taking the most extreme examples. But don’t these examples seem to dominate in an era wherein we are supposed to be more rational, more informed by science and the spirit of critical thinking than in pitiful ages of the past? If that is true, why then does this self-styled "caliphate" reign in Iraq and Syria, systematically cutting people’s heads off on videos and throwing them off of buildings?

Oh, and while we’re at it, why did this nation allow its president to order in troops to occupy and attack a country that was completely militarily contained by us, thus sparking a long-simmering civil war that lead directly to the creation of said insane organization? I mean, what was everyone saying or doing as our tanks started across the desert? I know I was standing up and screaming at the TV: "this is crazy!" Lots of people were. But still, we just let it happen. Why didn’t the masses take to the streets, a la, Viet Nam?

I don’t know. I guess because we didn’t personally have to go there.

But just look at religious conviction. Look at political conviction. Ever notice just how irrationally immovable it can be? Jesus is coming back to send all the gays to hell. Allah is bringing about a triumphant world jihad. The black president has never done anything good for this country, period. We all need to walk around with guns. Hello?

Now, I’m not telling anybody anything that they don’t already know, but seriously, what’s up with this species?

I mean when you look at all the b.s. that people swallow and their utter willingness to do anything - unquestioningly - to help bring about a certain loony agenda, this Scientology stuff just seems like a drop in the bucket. What is there about us that makes so many of us such suckers? Why is there such a strong will to believe in virtually whatever, just so long as it gives us some sort of sense of verification?

Is there really something deep within the human condition - in the human mind - that makes it want to latch onto things, however absurd, just so that we can comfort ourselves and tell ourselves that we at least have some ground or basis on which we can believe and to which we can commit? Is this some sort of built-in defense mechanism on our species’ part that ensures that we will, in some way, fight for survival if our minds get hooked on certain unshakeable beliefs, no matter what the content?

In my last post on Joseph Campbell, which very few people read (and no, I don’t blame you), I quoted him talking about a mental process which he described as a "seizure" that happens when an individual (or presumably, a group) begins to take its own mythology too literally. Let me just go ahead and reprint the relevant section:


"A professor," wrote Leo Frobenius in a celebrated paper on the force of the daemonic world of childhood, "is writing at his desk and his four-year-old little daughter is running about the room. She has nothing to do and is disturbing him. So he gives her three burnt matches, saying, ‘Here! Play!’ and, sitting on the rug, she begins to play with the matches, Hansel, Gretel, and the witch. A considerable time elapses, during which the professor concentrates upon his task, undisturbed. But then, suddenly, the child shrieks in terror. The father jumps. ‘What is it? What has happened?’ The little girl comes running to him, showing every sign of great fright. ‘Daddy, Daddy,’ she cries, ‘take the witch away! I can’t touch the witch any more!’"

"An eruption of emotions," Frobenius observes,

 is characteristic of the spontaneous shift of an idea from the level of the sentiments (Gemut) to that of sensual consciousness (sinnliches Bewusstein). Furthermore, the appearance of such an eruption obviously means that a certain spiritual process has reached a conclusion. The match is not a witch; nor was it a witch for the child at the beginning of the game. The process, therefore, rests on the fact that the match has become a witch on the level of the sentiments and the conclusion of the process coincides of the transfer of this idea to the plain of consciousness. The observation of the process escapes the test of conscious thought, since it enters consciously only after or at the moment of completion. However, insamuch as the idea is, it must have become. The process is creative, in the highest sense of the word; for, as we have seen, in a little girl a match can become a witch. Briefly stated, then: the phase of becoming takes place on the level of the sentiments, whilst that of being is on the conscious plane.

This vivid, convincing example of a child’s seizure by a which while in the act of play may be taken to represent an intense degree of the daemonic mythological experience. However, the attitude of mind represented by the game itself, before the seizure supervened, also belongs within the sphere of our subject. For as J. Huizinga has pointed out in his brilliant study of the play element in culture, the whole point, at the beginning, is the fun of play, not the rapture of seizure. "In all the wild imaginings of mythology a fanciful spirit of playing," he writes, on the border-line between jest and earnest." "As far as I know, ethnologists and anthropologists concur in the opinion that the mental attitude in which the great religious feasts of savages are celebrated and witnessed is not one of complete illusion. There is an underlying consciousness of things ‘not being real.’" And he quotes, among others, R.R. Marett, who, in his chapter on "Primitive Credulity" in The Threshold of Religion, develops the idea that a certain element of "make-believe" is operative in all primitive religions. "The savage," wrote Marett, "is a good actor who can be quite absorbed in his role, like a child at play; and also, like a child, a good spectator who can be frightened to death by the roaring of something he knows perfectly well to be no ‘real’ lion."

"By considering the whole sphere of so-called primitive culture as a play-sphere," Huizinga then suggests in conclusion, "we pave the way to a more direct and more general understanding of its peculiarities than any meticulous psychological or sociological analysis would allow." And I would concur wholeheartedly with this judgment, only adding that we should extend the consideration to the entire field of our present subject.

 The "present subject" to which Campbell is referring is the entire field of human mythology, something to which he devoted his life to studying. And I, in turn, am studying him - along with many others - in an attempt to forge some sort of understanding of these things we so glibly refer to as "life" and "reality." Not that I think I can really get that far. I believe that our human brains are designed to ask questions that they cannot answer, but I think that fact was one of the main things that Campbell was getting at. Here, for example, he goes on to make a distinction between mythology (or one could even say philosophy, theology, or any number of speculative terms) as a game - that is, a willing, knowing, understanding game of "as if . . ." as opposed to the tyranny of a literal seizure, where we are trapped in the surety of our knowledge, no matter how absurd it may be!

Let me try to be really focused here and say what I’m on about with this whole stupid project. (I’ll set aside my artistic obsessions for the moment, although I think they are, and can be shown to be, ultimately, related to my subject at large.)

I am conducting a personal inquiry based upon 57 years of observation and study, in the hopes of advancing my own understanding of some of the fundamental questions about life in this here universe. And a lot of my questions deal with the subject of speculative belief in the context of critical thought. In other words: what kinds of things can we really allow ourselves to believe without letting ourselves be led astray to the point where we start destroying one another and ourselves?

You see, I just happen to believe that there are a lot of fascinating possibilities about this grand existence in this strange universe, and I think it behooves us to explore them. This is all about a process that began at childhood - it’s called learning and growing. In my humble opinion, it is something that should never stop as long as one is alive.

Some people may think this is all a bunch of bullshit, boring, or a complete waste of time. I really don’t care. I do it because I want to - hey, i need to! I don’t know why. It’s what gets me up in the morning and keeps me busy all day. That’s just me.

But in the midst of all my analytical balderdash, I keep coming back to themes, thoughts and traditions that have served the human race in various positive ways for millennia, varying in each of our different cultural spheres and at different times. There is good in mythology. There is much of value, I believe, in religion - all religions. (Hey, there may even be some good at some level for Scientology - as long as you don’t take it too seriously.) I believe there is value in philosophy - even if we cannot answer the ultimate questions. (We can’t! Believe me!) And we are reaching a glorious new era where all the long chains of cultural experience are fantastically and rapidly intertwining with one another in a new global experience of interconnectivity.

And I think that’s going to lead us to some novel new places that we can’t even begin to imagine yet. I’m just following my instincts to put my little feelers out to make my own fundamental assessments of things I find fascinating, working (or playing, if you will) at my own level of competence to see what I can come up with. And it just so happens that I’m able to throw it out at you all and see if anybody has something interesting to add.

But the big question here is, how on earth are we going to keep expanding and learning, and adapting, as a race - collectively - if we, as a species are so inherently stupid, gullible and worst of all, so god-damned determined to be absolutely right all the time, no matter what the evidence suggests otherwise?!!

No, the whole Scientology scam is just the tip of the iceberg. Look around the country. Look around the world. How the hell are we going to survive (let alone thrive), if we all insist on certitude? And not just certitude that we’re right. We’ve got to let the other guys know they are wrong!

I know, it’s nothing new. But the stakes are getting higher, aren’t they? How long until everyone has a bomb . . . or perhaps the next big thing after that?

Look, there are all kinds of possibilities for ways of people to think, to believe, to create. Diversity is wonderful, and it will (or should) keep us rolling gloriously on through the rest of this century at least. But we’ve got to leave that bugaboo of certitude behind.

Hey, I don’t care what you believe. Just please be able to admit that you could be wrong!

I believe in a lot of things, all to varying degrees. And I could be wrong about all of them!

What’s so hard about that?

What on earth do I need to believe in so badly that I will hurt or even kill someone because of it?

The only belief that carries that much weight with me is the belief that I shouldn’t hurt or kill anybody!

Wow, maybe that’s all we need.

Joseph Campbell talked a lot in his later years about the planet’s need for a new global mythology. He saw all the old, parochial ones breaking down one by one, and he said, look: we’ve got to have something. We’ve got to have something that we all think is sacred. Otherwise we’re just going to kill each other. I don’t know what it is, but we need something.

I think that Scientology, radical Islam, Christian fundamentalism, racism, political reactionism, rabid conservatism, knee-jerk liberalism (sorry - the other guy being always wrong doesn’t make you always right), and our little excursions into fascism, communism and every other damn ism of the last century all make it perfectly plain and clear that we all need to be groping to find that something.

It needs to be humane. And it needs to be flexible, caring and accommodating for everyone.

And it needs to be sane.

And I don’t know what it is, but I’ll keep looking.

I hope you will too.

Sorry for the rant. I’ll get back to "monism," because I know that’s what everybody’s really interested in.


 

 - petey