Post by Tommy JoeIt is difficult for me to make my point - maybe because I don't
have one - but the point I thought I had, you just fort of proved it
when you said you're doing a lot of wine testing lately "in
conjunction with a wine class". A wine class. See, that proves what
I was saying, that a person can be taught to know the wines they're
supposed to like and not like.
Your assumption that the class was "teaching me what to like" is in error.
Post by Tommy JoeThey might even learn to like the them
- or they might like them right from the start - but the fact that
someone would go to a wine class only proves my point.
I think your idea of what a "wine class" does is also in error. I
can't imagine that "the kind of people who would go to a wine" class is
a group whose taste can be predicted accurately. If so any/every book
on the TOPIC of wine is suspect. And as you clearly point out below,
all information is suspect.
Post by Tommy JoeI said a person can form considered good taste in one field, but
that doesn't mean they have good taste in everything. In other words,
I'm having a hard time giving in to statistics because I'm not the one
running the tests or conducting the surveys, and am therefore open to
doubts about their honesty…
If honesty is an impediment there is no information that can be
presumed valid other than personal experience, which can never be
presumed to be without personal bias. Conclusion: All of life is a pack
of lies.
Post by Tommy Joe- and I still believe there is a level of
learned snobbery (not that there's anything wrong with that), which
does not mean that the snobbery earned in one field extends to all.
Okay then.
Post by Tommy JoeAnyway, if wine grew on trees that belonged to nobody, surely in
time people would gravitate toward the trees with the good stuff. But
without a price tag the value could be determined only by the number
of people hanging around each tree and how many are willing to die in
fights over who gets to pluck that tree or take it for their own. I
know there are grades to things. Not everyone has the time. money, or
inclination to test those grades. So I suppose maybe you could be
saying even without meaning to that people with money have more taste
than those with less.
Certainly not. But people with more money have more input to the
shaping of an aesthetic.
An aesthetic is an aestheric. I think aesthetics can be shaped by
external considerations: Fashion, desire for personal position in
standing, adopting the views of mentors without analysis, access to
some options (bitter, acidic, tannic) versus others (sweet, savory). In
parts of the world there is more interest in sweets than in others
based on what is availble. There's little of "sugar" in Japan so for a
few millenia they gave a lot of emphasis to red bean as a sweet thing.
Not me! The middle-eastern cultures drink a lot of arak. I find that
stuff impossible. But the geography/topography shapes some of these
things, of this there is no doubt.
When things are in rare supply AND people want them, they become
expensive. But I don't believe expensive crap can have much legs in
constructing an aesthetic if it's really crap. If it's crap it dies
out. Just my view.
Post by Tommy JoeI know you're not saying that for real - but
there could be an argument made that you are saying that, even though
you're not. I agree with your method of tasting - I'd probably do the
same - test things for a failing grade, then ex them out - like sports
teams that don't make the playoffs. Once you get in the playoffs,
anybody can win.
It's always tough. I didn't like bourbon or cognac many years ago.
Somehow or other, I've become a zealot. It has a fan base that gave it
a stamp of approval that eventually I adopted.
No one idea stands alone as the functional principal in a concept.
There's always interference for better or worse.
--
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.
-- Galileo