Profile

Cover photo
Darby Higgs
Attended University of Melbourne Agriculture Faculty
Lives in Melbourne, Australia
398 followers|65,609 views
AboutPostsCollectionsPhotosYouTubeReviews

Stream

Darby Higgs

Shared publicly  - 
 
Winsor takes us through the story of how this variety has become established in Australia.
1
Add a comment...

Darby Higgs

Shared publicly  - 
 
Passion in a bottle!
 
Yelland & Papps Devote Roussanne 2014
Fresh! Whack - sensory assault: florals, honey, golden delicious and nashi pear in the mix too. Alcohol down on the 2013: mid-11 here compared to 13% on the previous year. Apparently both picked at the same baumé, around high 11s. Mealy, honeyed, creamy por...
Fresh! Whack - sensory assault: florals, honey, golden delicious and nashi pear in the mix too. Alcohol down on the 2013: mid-11 here compared to 13% on the previous year. Apparently both picked at the same baumé, around hi...
View original post
1
Add a comment...

Darby Higgs

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Oh dear!
Meet what has to be the worst airline meal I have had this year. Or last year, for that matter. Pasta for dinner anyone?    It was a dish served on flight LA 801 between Santiago in Chile and Auckland.  This culinary gem wa...
1 comment on original post
1
Add a comment...

Darby Higgs

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
This #infographic clearly explains which wine glasses you should use with which #wine! #WineLover #Stemware http://ow.ly/KF8iW
Check out this cool chart on the different types of wine glasses. Identify the main types of wine glasses you should buy based on your needs.
View original post
3
DrinksDeal's profile photo
 
great information!
Add a comment...

Darby Higgs

Shared publicly  - 
 
A longish piece but worth the read.
 
THE CASE FOR PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS

Convincing people stuck in bipolar ‘either or’ paradigms of anything is almost an insurmountable challenge. And why would you try?

Because they make up the majority that determine how the entire planetary population gets to live out its collective and individual lives.

Why do so many people think that that there are simple yes/no answers, and fixed truths to which we can cleave?

Because it’s easy.

Traditionally this has been the refuge of scoundrels using religion and ideology (same thing?) as the vehicle.

But in today’s fractured world even the people notionally championing rationality are prone to distorting life as being an artifact of their own obsessions with numerical truths.

Missing in all conceptions along this reductionist determinist path is everything that matters immediately. The existential grant or denial of whether we will eat today, or not. Sleep safely and comfortably, or not. Receive medical care or not. Be shot and killed by people sworn to protect us, or not.

What we get instead is an increasingly echoing vault of absolutists who seek to reduce all purpose and striving to live to ever more precisely defined abstracts (the reductionists), and who then find from such prescriptions ever more precisely defined ‘righteous’ paths or resolutions (the determinists).

You can just picture this as a vast grotto of yelling and screaming five-year-olds.

‘My brother took my dolly, and now I hate him and everything about him.’

‘It’s not true. She lies. She always lies.’

Partisan positions indeed.

In reality they will have both forgotten the cause and objects of the argument in minutes. Sadly, as adults, that is no longer true. And I wouldn’t care if the imbeciles pursuing this pathology were not so influential in my life as well as that of everything on the planet.

Of particular concern here is the fact that this kind of silliness is not confined to known children and adult cretins: the religious zealots, conspiracy theorists, political absolutists, and all their offspring.

Today it actually includes many people who label themselves as rational and sane. Scientists. Mathematicians. IT professionals. Administrators. Managers. People who don’t understand that when they confuse their tools and artifacts with human truths and fixed paths they become totalitarians.

What is left, then, in a world gone completely insane?

In order to limit this discussion to some manageable time-frame, let’s just say these thoughts began with a self-promoting essay by n+1 publisher Mark Greif in the Chronicle of Higher Education (http://chronicle.com/article/Whats-Wrong-With-Public/189921/).

Greif used a generous word count to pay homage to an overtly communist American publication of the 1930s, Partisan Review. That publication was able to survive and morph into a dissenting fixture until it ceased publication in 2003. Its defining feature always was content with a view for an America different from that imposed by people whose only religion and ideology is their own profit. Today we see its influence mainly as its antithesis: Fox News and News Corporation, or all their emulators.

Greif used his editorial space to promote his own venture in an almost tastelessly artless fashion, meaning that n+1 probably can’t marshall the same intellectual power of Partisan Review in its worst issues. Nevertheless, he made a few points that elude self-professed rationalists today.

Public intellectuals,” as Russell Jacoby defined them near the start of this culture war, in 1987, are simply “writers and thinkers who address a general and educated audience.” … undamaged by specialization and professionalism, pretension and ideology!



The idea of the public intellectual in the 21st century should be less about the intellectuals and how, or where, they ought to come from vocationally, than about restoring the highest estimation of the public. Public intellect is most valuable if you don’t accept the construction of the public handed to us by current media. Intellectuals: You-we-are the public. It’s us now, us when we were children, before the orgy of learning, or us when we will be retired; you can choose the exemplary moment you like. But the public must not be anyone less smart and striving than you are, right now. It’s probably best that the imagined public even resemble the person you would like to be rather than who you are. (And it would be wise for intellectuals to stop being so ashamed of ties to universities, however tight or loose; it’s cowardly, and often irrelevant.)

What I think Greif is reaching for is the contempt that partisans in one or another meaningless bipolar opposition have for their counterpoints. The idea that there can be none but a sole answer to any position, issue, and problem. The idea that we should all chop off our left hands because our right does the only meaningful work, or the other way around, if we don’t ‘agree’ with the first option for retarded nihilism.

Personally, the biggest obstacles to a rationalist renaissance I can see in the USA and Europe is the clannish elitism inherent in gathering together ‘acolytes’ in the private discussions of Reddit, under Wikipedia’s skirts, and on Google Plus itself (among many other other umbrellas) which seek to determine terms and conditions on which others will be admitted, or their arguments considered valid. This is a rearguard action by people admitting they have already lost. Lost to the overt ideologists/theologists.

Such frat-boy efforts aren’t going to change things. They will just fold into broader movements determined by accountants about how to channel the angst and impotent rage so that it profits someone at the end of the stream.

Imagine the preposterous idea that I would ever accept as valid the imposition of some white knight's interpretation of what I can or cannot say about women, blacks, refugees, or my own dietary preferences. Precisely the kind of demands being made of me lately by even my own countriots. My rward for compliance? Acceptance and affirmation as 'one of us'.

How can any of us refuse that hemlock cup?

Like this.

When I use the term intellectual, I tend to exclude merely vocationally trained specialists, particularly programmers and other IT technicians, who have nothing much to say about anything else.

Along with many others, I see an intellectual being someone able to apply critical thinking across a range of ideas and issues.

The public intellectual does this more than just idly or passingly. For a public intellectual it is daily business to consider how we live our lives, and how that might be hindered or improved by a variety of means.

If the intellectual is an academic, that might include connecting academic ideas about the arts, economics, politics, and the sciences to immediately practical ends, but in a language that isn’t bogged down in the faux neutrality and frigid ‘scientism’ of the academy. It is not a paper to be peer reviewed by dullards looking only for validation by research or experiment to suit faculty requirements. It is a comment attempting to connect with people outside the academy in terms they can reach for from the breakfast table, the street, or the workplace.

If the intellectual is not an academic, public comment might instead be based on a professional or vocational insight. An architect might have interesting things to say about urban planning. A concert pianist might say insightful things about designing an opera house or an orphanage. A metal fabricator might have proposals for changing how we measure labour productivity or national income statistics. And so on.

The common thread in public intellectuals is that they bring their insights into a public forum as a stimulant for thought and discussion. That implies the existence of a public forum, which used to be mainly newspapers and journals, but is many other things beside today.

Public intellectuals, as I see them, are not merely engaged with issues, but are capable of a literary level of prose or speech, meaning they don’t fumble with words or degenerate into ‘umms’ and ‘ahhs’. They can address their points clearly, and more than that, with eloquence that makes them literary rather than pedestrian or merely vernacular.

How are such public intellectuals different from, say, Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times, or Lewis Black doing an angry stand-up satire about social inequality?

Well, they probably share many features, but public intellectuals usually don’t make a living from their commentaries on public issues. They pursue careers that might have little to do with their public statements. Noam Chomsky has been described as America’s greatest public intellectual. He is notionally a linguist, but his political comments probably don’t relate to his original academic discipline at all. Bertrand Russell was an academic philosophy instructor, but won a Nobel Prize for literature, and became synonymous with Britain’s Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Tom Paine’s corset-making days had nothing to do with his aspiration for people as free individuals.

A final defining feature of public intellectuals, in my view, is that they deal with questions and answers in which absolutes have no place. These are all ‘wicked’ problems in that they relate to choosing one or more of many possible paths to address some problem or issue seen as of contemporary relevance across society.

The ‘wicked’ problem was thus defined in the 1970s to acknowledge the difficulty in social policy of addressing competing demands with a limited toolkit and resource base, possibly also at the risk of choosing a path that creates unanticipated new problems. For example, by constructing cheap, affordable housing for the poor today, are we creating the ghetto of tomorrow?

So, public intellectuals are educated or knowledgeable people capable of articulate, even literary, prose and rhetoric, discussing issues of public interest in public forums, and without having vested interests in the outcomes.

There is a secondary point made by Mark Greif in the Chronicle of Higher Education: public intellectuals don’t talk down to their audiences. They grapple with words and language to deal with difficult problems, and they don’t pretend this is bubble gum territory, or that audiences get a pass when it comes to trying to understand difficult ideas. This isn’t quite the same as supposing that all people understand jargon and acronyms, which they undoubtedly don’t. It is more about not using euphemisms to describe the real: ‘lady parts’ refers to the idiocy of the user of such a tern, not to ‘pussy’, ‘ass’, tits’. Let alone to vagina and mammaries. Such euphemisms should not be allowed to stand. ‘Pacification’ to describe legally sanctioned murder is just a lie to excuse elitist murder. ‘Security’ used as an excuse to deprive liberty is Soviet-Nazi bastardry, nothing in any way more meaningful than that.

Patronising audiences by reducing complex problems to meaningless simplicities serves no one but demagogues. The attempt at understanding difficult issues ought to reflect the difficulty of the issue itself. Reducing everything to models and examples stripped of complexity annihilates the intellectual content of any discussion, and likely misses the original point.

If that were not bad enough, we now have a crop of hipster rationalists who argue: ‘This is wrong because science.’ Quite apart from the aphasia involved in trying to decipher such statements, it is simply a religious argument restated along the new lines of a fashion catalogue.

Science and know-how tell us nothing about what to do with scientific research findings or the many toolkits we have available to us. Human judgement in the context of social environments are the only mechanisms for working out what we do, why we do it (the ends we are trying to achieve), and which options we favour.

That is the point of public discussions, and this is where public intellectuals come in to question, advocate, oppose, and encourage public engagement with decision-making processes.

My perception is that quality of debate has declined sharply since the 1980s, being edged out by a radicalised anti-intellectualism favouring solely materialist, utilitarian conceptions of education, intellect, discussion, and social ends altogether. No room in there for the ‘limp-wristed’ literary critiques of which I’m so fond as fodder for thought. Just suspicion about all things that cannot be reduced to formula or money. And that works both sides of the religious divide in the USA, meaning there isn’t really any divide at all.

As a parting note, many people complain about TLDR. This is a danger in itself. Some ideas require more than abstracts to convey, and the increasing trend to reduce all things to pithy headlines, illiterate tweets, or semi-literate summary is intensely anti-intellectual in itself. Traditional public intellectuals have never bowed to ‘popular demand’ that only abbreviated snippets cater to an ‘attention deficit’ public. An illustration of this problem taken to absurd lengths is the idea that E=mc, can be abbreviated meaningfully as E=?

If and when you are a parent, consider how you will frame an argument or rebuttal. Will you surrender to the immediate demand to annihilate one of your progeny in favour of the other, or will you exercise judgement?

How much of the contemporary bipolar debate requires that you obliterate things that don’t need to be? How much of that insane commandment do you follow by trying to pin down sole and immutable answers? What sort of parent would you be if you imposed this logic on your children?

In a world devoid of adults, are public intellectuals possible, I wonder.
104 comments on original post
1
Peter Strempel's profile photo
 
Yes. long. And boring. Unless ....
Add a comment...

Darby Higgs

Shared publicly  - 
 
The internationalisation of wine, but the nicer side of it, not the homogenisation of brands and flavours.
 
France by way of Italy - On the Wine Trail in Italy - http://winema.ps/1yWTtnD
When I was coming up in the wine business, there was this invisible wall between France and Italy, put there mainly by wine snobs who thought France was the epitome of all that wine was meant to be. In those days I would often hear things like “Oh, you are an Italian wine-lover.
View original post
1
Add a comment...
In his circles
599 people
Have him in circles
398 people
Born & Raised Wines's profile photo
Nick O'Sullivan's profile photo
Brendan Hilferty's profile photo
Favourite Design's profile photo
Kim Brebach (The 20 Dollar Wine Guy)'s profile photo
Owen Smythe's profile photo
rinku sarkar's profile photo
Bee Cee's profile photo
Rusty Mutt Wines's profile photo

Darby Higgs

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Another great video Winebird, but I think you were upstaged in the acting department by the gunshy dog. I'd love to use the video in a later edition of my magazine.
1
Add a comment...

Darby Higgs

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Another great vid Winebird, love the vinalogy!
1
Add a comment...

Darby Higgs

Shared publicly  - 
 
Malbec is an old grape variety enjoying a renaissance of popularity thanks to its success in Argentina. While these dark, inky grapes originated in the south of France and are one of the six varieties allowed under the Bordea...
1
Add a comment...

Darby Higgs

Shared publicly  - 
 
If they can do it in Perth they can do it near you!
Every day is a good excuse to celebrate the brilliance of wine! However I do love when globally the world spends a day celebrating one specific grape variety, giving it it’s time in the limelight that it deserves. Coming up on Friday 17th of April 2015 is the annual World Malbec Day, so it’d only be …
1
Add a comment...

Darby Higgs

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Australia Trade Tasting and Conference Announced. Learn from some of the most influential professionals in the beverage industry at the Australia Trade Tasting educational conference on 1st September, 2015 and 2nd September. http://australiatradetasting.com/en/conference-26.htm
View original post
1
Add a comment...

Darby Higgs
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Vintage 2015 is underway
Invite for Wineries to share their stories
How is it going in your vineyard?
Are you picking earlier or later than usual?
What are the prospects for vintage in terms of quality and quantity?
Is this the first vintage for any new and exciting varieties for you?
Leave a comment, and we can share our experiences.
1
1
Darby Higgs's profile photo
Add a comment...
Darby's Collections
People
In his circles
599 people
Have him in circles
398 people
Born & Raised Wines's profile photo
Nick O'Sullivan's profile photo
Brendan Hilferty's profile photo
Favourite Design's profile photo
Kim Brebach (The 20 Dollar Wine Guy)'s profile photo
Owen Smythe's profile photo
rinku sarkar's profile photo
Bee Cee's profile photo
Rusty Mutt Wines's profile photo
Education
  • University of Melbourne Agriculture Faculty
    2012
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Other names
David Higgs
Story
Tagline
The Australian Varietal Wine Man
Introduction
Darby is the webmaster of Vinodiversity.com an information site about wine made from less common wine grape varieties used in Australia.

In 2013 Darby Launched a new digital publication Vinodiversity Magazine.

He closely monitors the adoption of new wine grape varieties, such as Nero d'Avola, Gruner Veltliner and Vermentino by wineries in Australia.

He is author Vinodiversity the Book and the eCookbooks "10 dishes for Sangiovese" and "Bacchus and the Bird"

Offline Darby provides information about wine at wine shows and in the print and electronic media. 

Darby is working on a project describing wine and food pairings for the regions of Italy

Work
Occupation
Wine writer
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Melbourne, Australia
Previously
Country NSW and Victoria
We visited in 2013 as part of a walking tour. Very quiet location, simple rustic fare, stunning views from the restaurant and our room.
Public - a year ago
reviewed a year ago
Firs listed in James Halliday's wine companion 2014 has tempranillo grapes
Public - 2 years ago
reviewed 2 years ago
2 reviews
Map
Map
Map