Those stars in full

[Fat Guy]

The press releases go out in late February for the French ones, I think, and then I'm pretty sure the updated guides usually go on sale the first weekday of March. There are Michelin guides for other countries too, and I believe they have different schedules. Then again, you might want to ask someone who actually looks at the Michelin Guide, since I find it useless.

[Wilfrid]

Michelin guides.  So that's where it all started.

No, of course some things are natural.  I would agree that if someone liked the taste of soap, they probably have something physiologically wrong with either their olfactory equipment or their brain.  But a "naturalist" explanation of critical and aesthetic judgment has to develop some plausible account of why people with the same "natural" structure disagree.  Interestingly, the "naturalist" approach was attacked by Husserl because he thought it sacrificed objectivity.  In his day, the theory was abroad that the validity of judgments could indeed be explained by natural facts about human psychology, and Husserl was horrified by the idea that if these natural facts changed, or turned out to vary between human beings, objective truth would vanish.  But that's a long story.

Mr Shaw, to try to put my defence against relativism in a nutshell:  I have tried to emphasise that I think all reasonable judgments are made against a background of criteria which are more or less agreed upon by whatever the interested community is.  When people disagree about a critical judgment, it is possible to test their views against these criteria.  So - if someone says Richard Foreman writes better plays than Shakespeare, you can test that against what our shared criteria for great drama are, and provide a reasoned account of why they are wrong.  Everyone's opinion is not just of the same value and equally right; we have rational ways of evaluating opinions.

Very truncated, and therefore probably unclear, but that's how I argue against out and out relativism.

Listen, I don't want to bore people, and I am happy to declare a truce on this and move on.  Up to the other participants.

[Fat Guy]

Truce? Truce! We don't need your stinking truce!

I still think you're arguing for a kind of moral relativism because you're saying that whatever society decides is right is right. I totally disagree. I say, if some other society decides it's okay to burn women on their husbands' funeral pyres, we should go in there, kick ass, and change things to a morally acceptable state of affairs. And we should be even harsher if they don't like Montrachet.

[Wilfrid]

I couldn't agree more, Steven, and in fact I recall being spurred to think about arguments against moral relativism when it was necessary to stand up for Salman Rushdie's right to publish novels, however unreadable and offensive, without getting death threats.

The important thing is that we come up with good reasons for denying people the right to place widows in chafing dishes.*  It is more than just a gut reaction on our parts which we couldn't rationally justify (although the gut reaction features too).   The widow-burners might come up with reasons for what they're doing, but I expect they'd be bad ones.  There would be a debate (and maybe some ass-kicking); what I am unable to make philosophical sense of is the concept that there's something beyond our community's notions of good and bad, developed through debate and discussion over many years, that we can point to in order to demonstrate that widow-burning is wrong.  There are, if you like, no facts extraneous to our own conceptions of morality which we can use to prove our point.  Just like there aren't any facts extraneous to the evaluative consideration of cuisine by human eaters over the years which demonstrate that one cuisine is better than another.

*Yes, I had a glass of wine with lunch.

[Andy Lynes]

Quote: from Fat Guy on 6:18 pm on Jan. 31, 2002

I say, if some other society decides it's okay to burn women on their husbands' funeral pyres, we should go in there, kick ass, and change things to a morally acceptable state of affairs.

Who'd have thought an American would hold such views? (Blue face looking sardonic, with a hint of wistful reflection and a sudden flash of bemusement that quickly fades to a smile of knowing contentment).  

[Steve Klc]

It's also worth standing up for Salman because of Padma.

[Wilfrid]

Okay, I'll bite.  Who's Padma?

[yvonne johnson]

I'm not a Rushdie fan, but I think Padma is a narrator in Rushdie's Midnight's Children, and there's another Padma (Lakshmi) in real life who is Rushdie's other half. I think it's the second that Steve is referring to. She's a model, and has a show on food "Padma’s Passport" (?) on tv in the US. I only know this because my other half goes gaga over Padma. She is pretty stunning.

[Steve Klc]

Wilfrid--google "Padma Lakshmi"  or link here for her bio:

http://www.foodtv.com/celebrities/lakshmibio/0,3432,,00.html

She is hotter than a tandoor oven, has written a few books, has a Food TV show and at one time, possibly still, was reported by the New York Post on the arm of Salman.  If I were running eGullet we'd have a board solely devoted to the intricacies of Padma and Nigella.

[Wilfrid]

Oh, her.  That was well worth a Google; the search led to some interesting black and white portraits of her, which I have seen before somewhere or other - but I never knew she was Mrs Rushdie.  Phew.

Move over Jaqui Malouf.

Here's a nice pic of Padma, tame enough to post:

http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/jul/06lak1.jpg

[Steve Klc]

Welcome to Padmaville.

http://www.lakshmifilms.com/

[Andy Lynes]

Now, see, this is much more interesting. Are we done with the philosophy now?

I once sat at the next table to Salman Rushdie at The Ivy whilst the Fatwa was still on. I glanced up at the door nervously more than once that night I can tell you.

[A Balic]

Padma is very easy on the eyes indeed. Thank you guys, I will buy a round of Montrachet if I ever meet up with you. Oh, except for Steve Plotnicki, for him I will select a glass of Macon-Chardonnay chardonnay as punishment for inspiring me to read a book on Kant.  ;)

Andy, you sat near to Rushdie? Just be thankful you didn't sit next to him.

[Tony Finch]

99% of people think that roses smell better than garbage,but to return to food and drink not even 50% of people think that French food is the most "technically evolved" or "the best". In fact the majority of people who do think so happen to be...er.....French,with maybe some Northern Europeans and Americans agreeing.The "superiority" of French food is an imposed hegemony by a white western minority and is patently NOT a "fact".

I have no problem with someone telling me that Montrachet is better than St.Veran either "because it is" or for any other reason.My problem is with people who tell me that we live in a world where it is IMPOSSIBLE,even INCONCEIVABLE for Montrachet EVER to be less good than St.Veran.I believe Michelin inhabits that world and that is why it should be seriously questioned.

[Andy Lynes]

What happened, I thought we were talking about gorgeous women?

[magnolia]

Good to see that in spite of a rather unusual life, Salman Rushdie is no different from the typical red-blooded male. In spite of his fame and fortune, having a and having bounty placed on his head, he is obviously in 'mid-life crisis' mode, dating a woman who is 20 something years his junior - while still married (to his third wife). Obviously women have not cornered the market on fickle!

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony - Not only food, but culture in general is dictated by the tastes of a white Western minority. When I say it is a "fact," I am by implication not including people who eat bugs as a steady diet. And if you are going to insist on including those types of people, we can't have a conversation because we are bogged down in the semantics because the word "best" needs context.  As for Montcahet/St. Veran, I will admit that it is possible for a bottle of St. Veran to be better than a bottle of Montrachet. It's just highly, very, extremely, almost impossible, unlikely.

[Bux]

I really don't see how "Art" can de discussed out of cultural context with any meaning or intelligence. In terms of food, if there are universals, one might be "Is not ripe fruit "better" than unripened fruit?" We love sugar. That alone should tell us that Bernachon is inferior to Neuhaus, if not Hershey, in terms of natural selection. I think it's difficult, or at least disingenuous, to argue that there is a natural order and then argue that one must be educated to appreciate it in some areas. A rose obviously smells better, but Chateau Palmer needs to be understood?

To get back to Michelin for a moment, I'm willing to consider the possibility that it's losing relevance in today's multi-cultural society, but its strength lies in the fact that it compares oranges and generally avoids including examples of apples in the mix. Perhaps its style has worked best in France, because French restaurants have historically adhered to a singular form. The haute cuisine luxury three star restaurant is just a bistro raised to the highest level of the scale. Even the foreign and exotic restaurants of France had adapted to the French restaurant formula. In my early visits to France on a tight budget, I don't think I realized that many of the restaurants I chose were Greek, Balkan and north African restaurants and not really French.

I can't specifically comment on how successful the UK Michelin is, but I think I'd be able to accept it on its terms. It's legitimate to attack it for what it is, but it's a different criticism that saying it doesn't do what it does, well. It is all relative. This is not to say that if we are voting, I will cast my vote with Plotnicki for French food and Bernachon chocolates.

[Tony Finch]

Steve-if you are going to dismiss billions of Chinese ,Indians Thais,Japanese...er..Syrians, not to mention Italians as "people who include eating bugs in their diet" then there truly isn't anything more to argue about.

[Andy Lynes]

The French are "best" at food in the same way the Americans are "best" at....... (hold on, give me a minute, I'll think of something).

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony - Michelin, Robert Parker and countless other guides and experts about food and wine, assume a hierarchy in their respective fields. When they write about their fields, they correctly omit the people who have no cultural connection to food and wine as defined by Western society. If you have a bone to pick with that, well that's your right. But understand that insisting on including Chinese in that statement, who might have never eaten more than a bowl of rice with a little gravy is pointless and serves to undermine the conversation. It is pointless to argue about the context of a statement when a change in context won't change the thrust of the substance of the statement. So next time when I say that President Bush is the leader of the free world, the answer isn't "well how can you say that because the world isn't really free?"  And that is because my statement isn't about the free world; it's about the power of an American President in what is commonly held to be the free world.

Bux - The reason that a rose is different than Chateau Palmer is that a rose is totally natural. Wine, like chocolate is a natural thing that has been manipulated to extract certain flavors and characteristics. I mean if you walked through Chateau Palmer at harvest and tasted the grapes off the vine, they taste nothing like what is in the bottle. It gets even more complex if the end product is intended to go through a chemical change over time like wine goes through in the reduction process while it's aging. So be careful when you say natural order of things. Maybe the simplest example of what I'm describing is what Passard did to those carrots while I was there. One wouldn't necessarily associate carrots with sweetness. But if cooked slowly, the sugar is brought to the forefront. And pair it with some salt, it really seems sweet. One does not need to manipulate a rose in the same way to extract its essence. It's on the surface. It's obvious.

As for Michelin, it is losing its relevance contemporaneously with Haute Cuisine losing its relevance. Like dressing in a suit and tie for work has lost some of its relevance. And that isn't to say that Haute Cuisine (which is really French technique) isn't the highest expression of cuisine, or that a beautiful suit and tie aren't the best expression of clothing, it's to say that we live our lives in a more casual way these days.

So you have properly framed the issue. The issue isn't what Michelin doesn't do properly; it's about whether they do a good job at what they try to do, and whether there is a need for it. And criticizing them for not being good at giving proper recognition to other philosophies of cuisine is sort of like criticizing the Opera News for not recognizing The Who's Tommy as being a great rock opera. I know that isn't a perfect analogy, but it should make my point.

[Fat Guy]

Bux, you say, "I think it's difficult, or at least disingenuous, to argue that there is a natural order and then argue that one must be educated to appreciate it in some areas."

Why? Are there not countless examples of education in nature? Do all animals come out of the womb knowing everything they need to know? Do not adult wolves teach their puppies how to hunt and otherwise survive, all according to the natural order? An abandoned wolf pup certainly won't learn these things on his own. He'll just sit around until he dies. Is it disingenuous to call wolves natural when they had to learn something from their parents?

Humans are more highly evolved, of course, but we are natural beings nonetheless. I want to diverge from Plotnicki, because I think cultural context is not determinitive of the scope of our value judgments. Here I think he goes too far in the Wilfrid direction. I again maintain that for a Chinese person or other non-Westerner preferring Montrachet to St.-Veran is only a matter of exposure and a little guidance. I think that if you taught a million such people the lie that St.-Veran is better than Montrachet, you would have many of them refuse to accept the teaching. They would break away from the pack and create a new school of thought whereby Montrachet is preferred. But if you teach that Montrachet is better, you will have no rebellion, because it's true. You might have a few folks start a St. Veran club as a joke, but nobody would really believe it.

Physicality and nature provide many explanations that philosophers foolishly ignore, but they do not explain everything. The thing is, when the average philosopher tries to explain the non-natural things, he invariably argues from the relativist standpoint. This is not only wrong, but dangerous. If everything is not completely understood -- and it isn't -- I would rather assume my moral and cultural correctness than assume all values and cultures are equally valid.

[Tony Finch]

Many Chinese  may not eat at this level but there are some who argue that Chinese and Japanese cuisine at the highest level is easily as technically "evolved" as French haute cuisine,which,after all,is a level that most of the French never eat at.I suggest a viewing of the film "Eat,Drink,Man,Woman" to confirm the high class technical skills needed to produce Oriental food at that level.

And once again,my argument with Michelin is NOT that they,re "not good" at giving proper recognition to other philosophies of cuisine. It's that they do not accept,or do so only grudgingly that there ARE any other philosophies of cuisine.And punters in London DO recognize it,and are happy with it and have no problem with a world in which a Japanese restaurant can be as fine as a French one.

[Fat Guy]

I don't see French and Japanese cuisine as representing different philosophies; I see them as representing the same philosophy. They have worked to achieve the highest expression of excellence with the ingredients and technologies available to them over time. When the best French and Japanese chefs get together, they absorb technique from one another like information sponges. Then they go away and incorporate. We have not yet achieved the highest expression of cuisine, and we may never do so. But it will come from, for lack of a better word, the fusion of these cuisines. I don't know any French chef who doesn't recognize the brilliance of Italian, Chinese, Indian, or Japanese cuisine. It's not difficult to step back and say that there are several great cuisines in the world. Most people who love food love them all, and the overwhelming direction of cuisine now is to combine the best of each. Likewise, it's not difficult to say that many nations simply do not have a great cuisine: Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Burkina Fasso. They may have tasty food, or even the occasional local specialty that is the best of its kind, but they don't have great cuisines. This distinction should be easily recognizable by anybody with exposure to great cuisines.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony - Gee there you go again. You say your problem with Michelin is that they do not give proper recognition to other cuisines. But you keep omitting the fact that it isn't Michelin that you have a row with. It's everyone who agrees that there is a hierarchy of cuisines and  that French cuisine is at the top of the pile. All Michelin does is reflect the taste and opinion of their readers.

Your point about Chinese cuisine and the film is well taken. But nobody is saying that Chinese cuisine isn't complex or sophisticated. But in my opinion, and I'm a pretty accomplished Chinese food eater, Chinese cuisine, as great as it is, does not rise to the same level as French cuisine. And that is because French cuisine is a melting pot cuisine, and Chinese cuisine is isolated from outside influences.  That is why Steve Shaw's point about French and Japanese techniques fusing is right. They are fusing because those two cuisines are at the highest level of culinary sophistication, and that is because they were culturally dominant (as in high culture, not popular.) And if China wasn't a communist country for the last 50 years, and individual expression was allowed, and the ability to earn money wasn't encumbered by law, who knows, maybe they would have the greatest expression of culinary technique.

But that hasn't been the case, and to argue that a country who has been stymied culturally has superior cuisine to those who have been able to enjoy improvements that have come about by living in a free society, misses the point of what Michelin or anyone else is really taking note of. If you don't believe this to be the case, all you have to do is to look at the culinary revolution in Spain, a nation where the advancement in technique from when Franco came to power until he died was stagnate. But look at what they have done since he died, although what they do is still considered derivitive of French technique. But who knows, maybe 100 years from now it will be discussed in different terms, and the French part will be replaced by the term "classical," because it is practiced in too many countries to be described the way it is now.