Suppose we assume that the phenomenon of taste is between a particular bottle and a real human being. In that case, we should describe this story taking into account only these two elements. We may realise, of course, how many complicated factors we find in one particular bottle and one specific me. We will have to reduce the actual sensations of Robert Parker Jr. to a series of phenomena between him and the number of bottles that he tried.
Such a duo of bottles and a taster is in no way equivalent. Well, a bottle of wine is a passive matter that can change its properties under the influence of such factors as time, temperature. Still, it does not generate any cognitive impulses, and we cannot study it by looking for specific behavioural algorithms that are part of it. It’s just passive. We will find the activity on the side of the taster, as the taster only can be active. Tasting and taste belong to me, to the algorithms, to culture, knowledge, mood, to what the taster has just eaten, how he slept, whether the soup was salty.
We can apply objectivity to matter, that is, to elements observed. Only such aspects can be described numerically, linearly, spatially, as who prefers. In the present state of human knowledge, we (yet) are not subject to objective description, élan vital escapes the numbers. The numbers also run something as fleeting as the impression, the momentary sensation. It is simply impossible to scale up the assessment of taste sensations based on an excellent nose and phenomenal memory. Such a scale does not belong to the phenomenon of taste. It is an attribute of something else, entirely.
However, this will be the next text. Once Lisa Perrotti-Brown called Robert Parker Jr., the father of modern wine criticism. In my opinion, such a statement will be quite ok if we add one word to this sentence. Then the message will be: “the father of modern wine business criticism“.