Terry Theise and yeasts

I suppose if one defines "no secondary literature one likes" as "no secondary literature" then indeed the secondary literature is sparse. I assume in that definition is all the ordinary language philosophy since Wittgenstein that is explicitly beholden to him, which is practically all Anglo-American philosophy until the 1980s (with the important exception of Austin and his followers), when American departments of philosophy discovered that Continental philosophy hadn't just gone away.

Equally, if one takes the passage quoted from Wittgenstein as being about ordinary language as opposed to the problems philosophers have because they persist in trying to give ordinary language technical meanings, you can get him to be saying that we need to improve our language. I suppose your desire to get him to say this is why you don't like the secondary literature.

I presume, without evidence, that Wittgenstein would feel about debates over terroir what he came to feel about aesthetics: the confusion of philosophers over what art is and does doesn't mean that there isn't any art and that it doesn't do anything, only that we need to learn that we won't be able to talk well about it in technical and philosophical terms.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I presume, without evidence, that Wittgenstein would feel about debates over terroir what he came to feel about aesthetics: the confusion of philosophers over what art is and does doesn't mean that there isn't any art and that it doesn't do anything, only that we need to learn that we won't be able to talk well about it in technical and philosophical terms.
Click to expand...

Bravo.
 
Yes, it has been covered before, Thor, I was reading this on the road, Hank said it succinctly. I have a feeling I am held responsible to more stricter rules of engagement on this board than others.
 
originally posted by Alice F.:
I traveled with Terry in 2008 in Austria and found the yeast situation very interesting. At one point I was very frustrated because it seemed as if most people were using the same yeasts for their gruner and riesling (etc) and the sameness was getting to me. Tremendous difference when you taste at Hirsch or Nik. Dramatic.

Also, Terry is just not sensitive to it, we all have our different views of wine.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Terry is more sensitive and can perceive the differences. Hirsch and Nikolaihof do marvelous things, and without a list of those you felt were lacking it's hard to address, but what about Nigl, Brundlmayer or Jamek (to name a few)?
 
originally posted by Alice F.:
I have a feeling I am held responsible to more stricter rules of engagement on this board than others.
Click to expand...

That's kind-of the point, isn't it? A rising tide should float all the boats.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I suppose if one defines "no secondary literature one likes" as "no secondary literature" then indeed the secondary literature is sparse. I assume in that definition is all the ordinary language philosophy since Wittgenstein that is explicitly beholden to him, which is practically all Anglo-American philosophy until the 1980s (with the important exception of Austin and his followers), when American departments of philosophy discovered that Continental philosophy hadn't just gone away.
Click to expand...

ooh. look at you go.

i thought was explicit in defining "no secondary literature" for these purposes: beyond baker and hacker, there is no secondary literature on sections 65 to 82 (the sections that deal with this stuff -- definitions).

there is, of course, a vast secondary literature devoted to taking various chunks of the investigations out of context. just not these ones. and it's true that, because that literature systematically ignores a very important chunk of wittgenstein's carefully crafted technical analysis, i do tend to think it contributes nothing to human understanding beyond giving humanities professors something to pose about, but that's not really the point. the point is, and i'll say it again: beyond baker and hacker, there is no secondary literature on sections 65 to 82 (the sections that deal with this stuff -- definitions).

it's an easy claim to refute. go look. what you'll find is a secondary literature that has fixated on taking 66 out of context (such as the context provided by 67, in which wittgenstein explicitly rejects 66 as a play on words), and then nada. there be dragons.

one can only assume that the absence of a secondary literature on what is one of the central analyses in the investigations may have something to do with the fact that these sections do for analytic philosophy what thanksgiving does for turkeys. that, or else philosophers are a lazy bunch of motherfuckers.

Equally, if one takes the passage quoted from Wittgenstein as being about ordinary language as opposed to the problems philosophers have because they persist in trying to give ordinary language technical meanings, you can get him to be saying that we need to improve our language. I suppose your desire to get him to say this is why you don't like the secondary literature.
Click to expand...

if this is this what a lifetime in the humanities does to the mind, you ought to think about taking a break. language is fine. terroir is meaningful. so is meaningful. when my chubby fingers hit the keys, there are no riddles: the passage is self-evidently about the problems philosophers have -- and the point applies equally to anyone who adopts the philosophical stance.

I presume, without evidence, that Wittgenstein would feel about debates over terroir what he came to feel about aesthetics: the confusion of philosophers over what art is and does doesn't mean that there isn't any art and that it doesn't do anything, only that we need to learn that we won't be able to talk well about it in technical and philosophical terms.
Click to expand...

there you go, spoiling all my bombast by saying something sensible.

fb.
 
Yes, it has been covered before, Thor, I was reading this on the road, Hank said it succinctly. I have a feeling I am held responsible to more stricter rules of engagement on this board than others.
Click to expand...
I think, like Mike said, that's sort of the point here. I think you should be, as should we all. But for what it's worth, I was just using you to construct a joke at my own expense.
 
originally posted by David Lloyd:
My experience, supported by published research, shows that this suppresses yeasts that cause problems ie produce greater levels of compounds such as acetone and acetic acid. Both of these compounds are more detrimental to humans than alcohol and both add flavour components that will mask the flavours representing a sense of place.
Click to expand...

David,
I appreciate your contributions to this thread, but I could not let this pass without comment. You surely can't mean that acetic acid or acetone is more harmful to human health than ethanol, can you? The former is the product of ethanol metabolism in the liver and the latter is a byproduct of the citric acid (tricarboxylic acid) cycle. That's why if you smell the breath of someone who hasn't eaten for 24 hours, you can smell acetone on their breath. Both acetic and acetone are far worse for wine than is ethanol, so I hope that that's what you meant.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by David Lloyd:
My experience, supported by published research, shows that this suppresses yeasts that cause problems ie produce greater levels of compounds such as acetone and acetic acid. Both of these compounds are more detrimental to humans than alcohol and both add flavour components that will mask the flavours representing a sense of place.
Click to expand...

David,
I appreciate your contributions to this thread, but I could not let this pass without comment. You surely can't mean that acetic acid or acetone is more harmful to human health than ethanol, can you? The former is the product of ethanol metabolism in the liver and the latter is a byproduct of the citric acid (tricarboxylic acid) cycle. That's why if you smell the breath of someone who hasn't eaten for 24 hours, you can smell acetone on their breath. Both acetic and acetone are far worse for wine than is ethanol, so I hope that that's what you meant.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

Well, as acute intoxicants, acetone has an LD50 of ca. 3-5g/kg, acetate is not so different. Ethanol is 2-3x less acutely toxic. At least in naive animals. I suspect once the liver enzymes are all induced those numbers may change, particularly in hardened professors of chemistry.

So not very impressive differences (frankly, I was surprised about acetone, 3-carbon things having more and worse alternatives).

Of course, we all have our preferences for intoxicants.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:

Well, as acute intoxicants, acetone has an LD50 of ca. 3-5g/kg, acetate is not so different. Ethanol is 2-3x less acutely toxic. At least in naive animals. I suspect once the liver enzymes are all induced those numbers may change, particularly in hardened professors of chemistry.

So not very impressive differences (frankly, I was surprised about acetone, 3-carbon things having more and worse alternatives).
Click to expand...

Ketones are surprisingly unreactive in vivo, which is why a certain Professor of Chemistry at Berkeley was able to make an early splash in her career of biofunctionalization.

Mark Lipton

p.s. The LD50 of acetone is unsurprising to me, but I am a bit taken aback by the LD50 of acetic acid -- I thought that it got shunted off pretty efficiently via acetyl CoA to fatty acid biosynthesis, but maybe you can saturate that pathway.
 
I'm a little distracted by the carbon count. In my very early days in the lab, wary young Joe looked out for even numbers. Things that were terminally monofluorinated with even counts alternate toxicity by much more than a log with the odd ones. Things that find their metabolic way down to monofluoroacetate are very bad, and the rest don't come close.

Brad, my apologies.
 
originally posted by MLipton:

Ketones are surprisingly unreactive in vivo, which is why a certain Professor of Chemistry at Berkeley was able to make an early splash in her career of biofunctionalization.
Click to expand...
You know, one member of this board developed an in vitro method for hanging nucleic acids off proteins by reductive amination, lo these decades ago.

In vivo would have been quite the stretch.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:

You know, one member of this board developed an in vivo method for hanging nucleic acids off proteins by reductive amination, lo these decades ago.

In vivo would have been quite the stretch.
Click to expand...

???? Is there a typo in your first sentence? If not, your meaning is too oblique for me at this late hour.

Mark Lipton
 
David,
I appreciate your contributions to this thread, but I could not let this pass without comment. You surely can't mean that acetic acid or acetone is more harmful to human health than ethanol, can you? The former is the product of ethanol metabolism in the liver and the latter is a byproduct of the citric acid (tricarboxylic acid) cycle. That's why if you smell the breath of someone who hasn't eaten for 24 hours, you can smell acetone on their breath. Both acetic and acetone are far worse for wine than is ethanol, so I hope that that's what you meant.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

Well, as acute intoxicants, acetone has an LD50 of ca. 3-5g/kg, acetate is not so different. Ethanol is 2-3x less acutely toxic. At least in naive animals. I suspect once the liver enzymes are all induced those numbers may change, particularly in hardened professors of chemistry.

So not very impressive differences (frankly, I was surprised about acetone, 3-carbon things having more and worse alternatives).

Of course, we all have our preferences for intoxicants.
Click to expand...

It was my subtle way of saying ethanol is a rather evil compound. Small but regular doses can be riskier to your health than I expected, ie 3 glasses a day for 30 years. I see many friends who are at this level and scorn my belief in 2 to 3 AFDs a week and the way I always suggest maintaining moderation. All that LD 50 stuff takes me back to my third year pharmacology days. My other point is that acetone and acetic acid are not so good for us yet many "Natural" wines I am encouraged to try have acetone, acetic acid or 4EP type compounds many of which totally mask the terroir. I guess I tried to make too many points in a short note.
 
the-chemical-brothers-1.jpg
 
Fatboy,

I genuinely don't understand how you can approve of my Wittgensteinian take on art and terroir and also think the statement above it is a sign that too much humanities teaching has turned my mind to mush. They say the same thing, one about definitions, one about definitions applied to art and terroir. You must misunderstand either one statement or the other. I am happy to accept your agreement on the second statement, though, and leave it at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top