TN: Home Front

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Natural was certainly a concept important to Heidegger when he thought he was a Nazi. But Hitler didn't much think Heidegger was a Nazi. Was it a word important to him? I don't know the answer to that and would be happy to be instructed.

I tend to think of the invidious forbare to be Rousseau.

And to be fair to Oswaldo, his definition that natural means neutral avoids that lamentable intellectual history, though it does call forth the question of why the word natural, with all its bagage, is invoked.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Also, this business about "additives" is arbitrary dogmatism. Yes, SO2 can be "added" in the course of winemaking. Its purpose is to prevent bacterial flaws from being introduced. You could just as easily call the malignant bacteria the additive and SO2 the natural protector. Another additive is oxygen. You could try making your wine in a hermetically sealed environment but I wouldn't recommend it.

Ditto, as long as you continue using natural in a sense different from that of by natural wine advocates, you will remain at loggerheads with the concept (never mind the practice).

I don't find the position "nothing added, nothing subtracted" to be arbitrary at all, it is like "I eat no animal meat"; but I agree that it is a dogma.

I am not using the term in any sense different from the way you are. My point is that your objection to SO2 on the grounds that it violates the "nothing added" rule is unsustainable insofar as SO2 prevents the introduction of *other* things that would violate the "nothing added" rule.

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Also, this business about "additives" is arbitrary dogmatism. Yes, SO2 can be "added" in the course of winemaking. Its purpose is to prevent bacterial flaws from being introduced. You could just as easily call the malignant bacteria the additive and SO2 the natural protector. Another additive is oxygen. You could try making your wine in a hermetically sealed environment but I wouldn't recommend it.

Ditto, as long as you continue using natural in a sense different from that of by natural wine advocates, you will remain at loggerheads with the concept (never mind the practice).

I don't find the position "nothing added, nothing subtracted" to be arbitrary at all, it is like "I eat no animal meat"; but I agree that it is a dogma.

I am not using the term in any sense different from the way you are. My point is that your objection to SO2 on the grounds that it violates the "nothing added" rule is unsustainable insofar as SO2 prevents the introduction of *other* things that would violate the "nothing added" rule.

What I don't understand is your false equivalence of SO2 and spoilage (or other) microorganisms. The former is added by the hand of the winemaker, the latter occurs "naturally" in the cellar or on the grapes.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

No, spoilage bacteria doesn't come naturally on the grapes.

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
No, spoilage bacteria doesn't come naturally on the grapes.

yeast do. The bacteria are in the cellar.

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
No, spoilage bacteria doesn't come naturally on the grapes.

Yet is absolutely false that spoilage (e.g., Acetobacter) bacteria are not present when grapes are crushed. There are often grapes (particularly thin-skinned cultivars) where there are microlesions in the skins and bacteria and molds are present.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Natural was certainly a concept important to Heidegger when he thought he was a Nazi. But Hitler didn't much think Heidegger was a Nazi. Was it a word important to him? I don't know the answer to that and would be happy to be instructed.

I tend to think of the invidious forbare to be Rousseau.

And to be fair to Oswaldo, his definition that natural means neutral avoids that lamentable intellectual history, though it does call forth the question of why the word natural, with all its bagage, is invoked.

Right. Oswaldo, my comments weren’t directed at you - just the baggage and problems of using “natural” and all it entails.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
No, spoilage bacteria doesn't come naturally on the grapes.

yeast do. The bacteria are in the cellar.

Thus "additives."

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Natural was certainly a concept important to Heidegger when he thought he was a Nazi. But Hitler didn't much think Heidegger was a Nazi. Was it a word important to him? I don't know the answer to that and would be happy to be instructed.

I tend to think of the invidious forbare to be Rousseau.

And to be fair to Oswaldo, his definition that natural means neutral avoids that lamentable intellectual history, though it does call forth the question of why the word natural, with all its bagage, is invoked.

Right. Oswaldo, my comments weren’t directed at you - just the baggage and problems of using “natural” and all it entails.

It is somewhat unfortunate that it is used. Particularly because "natural" in the food industry is used for products that are anything but. Perhaps low-intervention might be a better term, but there is little chance that it will be adopted.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Also, this business about "additives" is arbitrary dogmatism. Yes, SO2 can be "added" in the course of winemaking. Its purpose is to prevent bacterial flaws from being introduced. You could just as easily call the malignant bacteria the additive and SO2 the natural protector. Another additive is oxygen. You could try making your wine in a hermetically sealed environment but I wouldn't recommend it.

Ditto, as long as you continue using natural in a sense different from that of by natural wine advocates, you will remain at loggerheads with the concept (never mind the practice).

I don't find the position "nothing added, nothing subtracted" to be arbitrary at all, it is like "I eat no animal meat"; but I agree that it is a dogma.

I am not using the term in any sense different from the way you are. My point is that your objection to SO2 on the grounds that it violates the "nothing added" rule is unsustainable insofar as SO2 prevents the introduction of *other* things that would violate the "nothing added" rule.

As in legal analysis, Keith, we are talking about intent. Intentionally adding S02 to prevent spoilage that may or may not occur from unintentional “additions”.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Natural was certainly a concept important to Heidegger when he thought he was a Nazi. But Hitler didn't much think Heidegger was a Nazi. Was it a word important to him? I don't know the answer to that and would be happy to be instructed.

I tend to think of the invidious forbare to be Rousseau.

And to be fair to Oswaldo, his definition that natural means neutral avoids that lamentable intellectual history, though it does call forth the question of why the word natural, with all its bagage, is invoked.

The idea of purity and harkening back to a perceived preindustrial ideal were apparently important to H. I wouldn’t know personally. (Although he and others certainly made it personal for me before I was born.)

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Also, this business about "additives" is arbitrary dogmatism. Yes, SO2 can be "added" in the course of winemaking. Its purpose is to prevent bacterial flaws from being introduced. You could just as easily call the malignant bacteria the additive and SO2 the natural protector. Another additive is oxygen. You could try making your wine in a hermetically sealed environment but I wouldn't recommend it.

Ditto, as long as you continue using natural in a sense different from that of by natural wine advocates, you will remain at loggerheads with the concept (never mind the practice).

I don't find the position "nothing added, nothing subtracted" to be arbitrary at all, it is like "I eat no animal meat"; but I agree that it is a dogma.

I am not using the term in any sense different from the way you are. My point is that your objection to SO2 on the grounds that it violates the "nothing added" rule is unsustainable insofar as SO2 prevents the introduction of *other* things that would violate the "nothing added" rule.

As in legal analysis, Keith, we are talking about intent. Intentionally adding S02 to prevent spoilage that may or may not occur from unintentional “additions”.

Does putting a wine in a (neutral) barrel for (natural) micro-oxygenation count as the intentional addition of O2?
How about racking?

 

[Jeff Grossman]

Bravo to you, Oswaldo, for an atmospheric use of the word 'stratospherically'.

Bravo to you, Jayson, for correctly identifying the rabbit hole.

Shame on you, Keith, for playing the troll here.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Also, this business about "additives" is arbitrary dogmatism. Yes, SO2 can be "added" in the course of winemaking. Its purpose is to prevent bacterial flaws from being introduced. You could just as easily call the malignant bacteria the additive and SO2 the natural protector. Another additive is oxygen. You could try making your wine in a hermetically sealed environment but I wouldn't recommend it.

Ditto, as long as you continue using natural in a sense different from that of by natural wine advocates, you will remain at loggerheads with the concept (never mind the practice).

I don't find the position "nothing added, nothing subtracted" to be arbitrary at all, it is like "I eat no animal meat"; but I agree that it is a dogma.

I am not using the term in any sense different from the way you are. My point is that your objection to SO2 on the grounds that it violates the "nothing added" rule is unsustainable insofar as SO2 prevents the introduction of *other* things that would violate the "nothing added" rule.

As in legal analysis, Keith, we are talking about intent. Intentionally adding S02 to prevent spoilage that may or may not occur from unintentional “additions”.

Does putting a wine in a (neutral) barrel for (natural) micro-oxygenation count as the intentional addition of O2?
How about racking?

I am not defending these hard distinctions. But you and Mark / Oswaldo were talking about something specific where one can point to an unintentional exogenous element - acetobacter.

I think the lines get very slippery once you break down every step (act / omission) and decision in the winemaking process. Wine is not made purely by nature. It’s a chemical engineering feat.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Shame on you, Keith, for playing the troll here.

Shame? TROLL? What is wrong with you?

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
As in legal analysis, Keith, we are talking about intent. Intentionally adding S02 to prevent spoilage that may or may not occur from unintentional “additions”.

Depends on what form of intent in legal analysis you're talking about. If you go with the form of intent where one intends the foreseeable consequences of his actions, then the distinction you're trying to draw evaporates.

The principle Oswaldo is defending isn't based on intent, though. It seems more to be based on action vs. inaction... Don't pull the lever!

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
No, spoilage bacteria doesn't come naturally on the grapes.

Yet is absolutely false that spoilage (e.g., Acetobacter) bacteria are not present when grapes are crushed. There are often grapes (particularly thin-skinned cultivars) where there are microlesions in the skins and bacteria and molds are present.

I would imagine some small amount of everything is on the grapes or in the environment, and may take over whenever the environmental conditions are so (mis)-managed that the competitive qualities of other organisms overtake/overwhelm those of the yeast.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by Pavel Tchichikov:

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:

originally posted by Lee Short:
IME, five years from when it first shuts down is like the worst possible time to try a good 1er cru Savigny. But I haven't really tried that often, so maybe I'm missing out. Have you had good experiences with that sort of thing?

Lee, I’ve been thinking about this some more. Now I think maybe my thought to try again in (only) 5 years is dumb. Maybe folks with experience aging this wine will jump in. On Ian’s questions too.

Pavel?

1978 Camus-Bruchon Savigny Les Lavieres tasted one month ago was the second best bottle of Savigny I've ever tried.

The best was the same wine in July of 2007.

Interesting to hear (read) these wines so highly praised. From Savigny, most of my experience has been with Pavelot and Bize wines (Bize's aux Vergelesses, when it's in a good place, graduates to a whole other class, IMHO). Do you drink the Savigny 1ers from these vignerons? That is, does your superlative praise include comparison with these wines?

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Lawyers are a strange lot. Most people can see the difference between intending to do a thing and intending the consequences that follow. Or even between intending certain consequences that don't in fact happen and not intending the ones that do. Of course, literary critics are a strange lot too, but I won't go there.

 

[Pavel Tchichikov]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Shame on you, Keith, for playing the troll here.

Wait, I thought Oswaldo was playing the troll. I am so confused.