I dream of such a discourse in which the word sign would fully correspond to the described phenomenon, that is as if defined by linguists, signifiant = signifié. Then we would altogether avoid misunderstandings, and by telling each level separately, we would create a clear picture of reality in our heads, which would pretend actually to reflect the world. Consequently, moving on to another level, it would become legitimate to say that truth in our heads accurately reflects the reality of the material world, and there would be after the problem, then.
Unfortunately, or perhaps, fortunately, human reality is far from an accurate description of the material condition. Using language, or rather unprecise symbols, we can only dream that our thought would become clear and precise. If we add to this the differences between the cause-and-effect view of the world and the emotional reception, usually supported in the images, the matter will get complicated so much that only a true genius could understand it and pass it on to others. I’m not a genius, but I have to try.
Some try to describe reality through juxtapositions of words and emotional intuition about truths hidden between words, and this seems to apply primarily to poets. Moreover, Art, in general, is a kind of description of what can not be said. Thinking with images falls, in a sense, in such categories. Problems arise when someone wants to apply poetry to describe rational reality. We create literature, then, and its value is not due to logical discourse, but to the power of words, to whether the symbol in the word will become a value. Then the reality described is of little importance, and the significance goes into form.
When considering wine and Parker, as well as all the derived implications, problems begin with the definition of taste. Not only in Polish. After all, we say the taste of wine, or even the taste of this wine from a given bottle, as well as: someone endowed with taste, that is, having a good taste, dressed with taste, or tastefully. This also applies to French goût. With a single symbol, we want to reflect the reality on both sides of the mirror.
The taste measured by Parker using his famous scale is something completely different from the taste of Parker, which he had always followed. Meanwhile, because of mere negligence, we give away various phenomena with the same symbol, and even sometimes we build on it fantastic, but breakneck theories. The essential requirement for an honest reviewer, and that’s the absolute minimum that one needs to keep, is to understand the fundamental differences, if only not to make water from the brain to others. When tasting wine, therefore, two phenomena meet the passive nature of the liquid in the bottle and the active taste of the sommellier, that is, his knowledge, preferences, culture, etc., that is, what Nossiter calls “goût“.