I strongly suspect that the virtue of Bissonomy is the virtue of acknowledging that which you do not or can not understand, also known as epistemic humility. (Yes, faith is its sister virtue—don’t ask how they’re both able to be virtues at once despite their symmetrical character, as that would mortally offend both of them.) The vague and unspecified nature of Bissonomy is the best clue we have as to its nature, there is a Buddhist feel to it. This has enough of a satiric bite to it that I can imagine the author actually writing it.
Biss sounds like bliss, which as we all know is the result of ignorance. But Bissonomy is not the intellectual embrace of ignorance, although it might sound like it (haha). Rather, Bissonomy is the emotional acceptance/knowledge that our map will never fully match the territory, and that some parts of the territory are not mappable at all (eg uncertainties of quantum measurements).
The main reason to be skeptical of this idea, other than a severe lack of evidence for it (perhaps this allows it to be reconciled with faith, though :p), is that it fails to explain the virtue of Tubso, and it seems to me like understanding one of the lost virtues might require also understanding the other.
However, I have a suspicion that the virtue of Tubso might be something absurd like “not throwing shellfish at the shadows of deities”, or perhaps Tubso is absurdism itself. The word certainly sounds silly enough for it. If we adopt the perspective that Bissonomy and Tubso are the “lost Buddhist” virtues, in my opinion this makes quite a lot of sense. A hint of absurdism paired with peaceful acceptance, just like a koan paired with its answer.
I think adopting this perspective seems like a good idea. There are only so many potential virtues, after all. And although I’ve not read enough of Pratchett’s work, I would bet he’s used non-Western culture as a source of inspiration before.
Another reason to be skeptical of my interpretation is that I ironically exhibit a lack of Bissonomy myself in so hastily jumping to the conclusion that it is possible to deduce what Bissonomy means, despite that Prachett provides little evidence around it. But perhaps this is simply another aspect of Prachett’s joke—forcing the reader to be hypocritical in order to understand the virtue of Bissonomy would be like a half-serious chastisement/reward for spoiling the fun of leaving the virtue unknown, similar to how trying very hard to find a true answer to a koan is a bad but necessary step in allowing the koan to change the way your mind thinks.
Ultimately, we may never know. And that’s okay. And that’s Bissonomy.
This is rather disorganized, unfortunately. Don’t read ahead unless you’re willing to be frustrated by near stream-of-consciousness writing.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/116456/meaning-of-onomy-ology-and-ography
I strongly suspect that the virtue of Bissonomy is the virtue of acknowledging that which you do not or can not understand, also known as epistemic humility. (Yes, faith is its sister virtue—don’t ask how they’re both able to be virtues at once despite their symmetrical character, as that would mortally offend both of them.) The vague and unspecified nature of Bissonomy is the best clue we have as to its nature, there is a Buddhist feel to it. This has enough of a satiric bite to it that I can imagine the author actually writing it.
Biss sounds like bliss, which as we all know is the result of ignorance. But Bissonomy is not the intellectual embrace of ignorance, although it might sound like it (haha). Rather, Bissonomy is the emotional acceptance/knowledge that our map will never fully match the territory, and that some parts of the territory are not mappable at all (eg uncertainties of quantum measurements).
The main reason to be skeptical of this idea, other than a severe lack of evidence for it (perhaps this allows it to be reconciled with faith, though :p), is that it fails to explain the virtue of Tubso, and it seems to me like understanding one of the lost virtues might require also understanding the other.
However, I have a suspicion that the virtue of Tubso might be something absurd like “not throwing shellfish at the shadows of deities”, or perhaps Tubso is absurdism itself. The word certainly sounds silly enough for it. If we adopt the perspective that Bissonomy and Tubso are the “lost Buddhist” virtues, in my opinion this makes quite a lot of sense. A hint of absurdism paired with peaceful acceptance, just like a koan paired with its answer.
I think adopting this perspective seems like a good idea. There are only so many potential virtues, after all. And although I’ve not read enough of Pratchett’s work, I would bet he’s used non-Western culture as a source of inspiration before.
Another reason to be skeptical of my interpretation is that I ironically exhibit a lack of Bissonomy myself in so hastily jumping to the conclusion that it is possible to deduce what Bissonomy means, despite that Prachett provides little evidence around it. But perhaps this is simply another aspect of Prachett’s joke—forcing the reader to be hypocritical in order to understand the virtue of Bissonomy would be like a half-serious chastisement/reward for spoiling the fun of leaving the virtue unknown, similar to how trying very hard to find a true answer to a koan is a bad but necessary step in allowing the koan to change the way your mind thinks.
Ultimately, we may never know. And that’s okay. And that’s Bissonomy.