A riddle for Lesswrong: what exactly is the virtue of Bissonomy?
When I read the article, I got the feeling that there were enough clues to extrapolate a solution in the same way that EY extrapolated the Dementors’ ‘true natures’. That this was a solvable riddle. I’ve got my suspicions, but I’d like to hear what you guys can come up with.
Specifically, bissonomy is the virtue of knowing (-nomy) how to attach yourself (“bissys” is the name for filaments by which certain bivalves attach themselves to rocks and other substrate) to some stable object.
Arguments:
The name. It basically tells you outright (and “bisso” is Portuguese for “bissys”, just in case).
She was turned into oysters—bivalves—which is a big hint.
She was punished for throwing a mole. What do moles do? They dig! They undermine and clearly, the virtue of stability couldn’t be seen undermining anything.
Two children is another hint at stability as families with two children neither increase nor decrease the population—they keep it stable.
She was forgotten—for the only thing constant in the world is change.
Sounds like a noodle virtue to me, or at least it uses the same basic idea for humour.
But if you want to keep in the spirit of EY’s dementors, the article writer does some wacky reasoning to end up roughly at the virtue of dietary restriction.
You say that this feels like a riddle to you, but I would prefer to call it a koan. I think the best hint that we have to the nature of Bissonomy lies in the vagueness of its descriptions, as this is the sort of irony that Pratchett is famed for, and this sort of self-answering riddle has a Buddhist feel to it in turn. This also seems like a useful starting point for another reason: there are only so many potential virtues that Bissonomy can plausibly be, and the standard Western ones are already accounted for.
I suspect Bissonomy is the emotional acceptance of both that which is known to be true and that which is uncertain or unknowable. Ignorance, as we all know, is purported to be bliss, and that sounds like biss. However, Bissonomy is not the embrace of ignorance, nor does it bring bliss. Rather, it is the acceptance of that which is known to be unknowable, and it brings inner-peace.
Bissonomy and Tubso seem to be connected. Both virtues were forgotten due to their rarity. Explaining what one was should hopefully tell us something about the other. But it’s even harder to say things about Tubso than about Bissonomy; the only thing that we know about Tubso is that its name is absurd. In a world where nominative determinism exists, however, this might be the only hint we need. I submit that Tubso is the virtue of absurdism, which surely has a place in Discworld. This fits with the koan framework, and establishes the desired connection between the two lost virtues; a koan’s answer is absurd and hints at strange knowledge, but truly understanding a koan requires the recognition that one can never understand it fully, if at all.
Of necessity, this theory is largely speculative. We may never know the true answer to this question, and that’s okay. And that, in turn, is Bissonomy.
This sounds somewhat like a specialized form of the very Christian value of Resignation, specifically resignation towards the Ineffability of God and his Mysterious Ways, and the seemingly chaotic creation.
Then again God often plays a Dao-like “empty center that lets the wheel turn” in these sorts of doctrines.
You say that this feels like a riddle to you, but I would prefer to call it a koan. I think the best hint that we have to the nature of Bissonomy lies in the vagueness of its descriptions, and there is a Buddhist feel to this. There is also the sort of irony that Pratchett is famous for. Also, this seems like a useful starting point for another reason: there are only so many potential virtues that Bissonomy can plausibly be, and all the standard Western ones are already accounted for.
I suspect Bissonomy is the emotional acceptance of both that which is known to be true and that which is uncertain or unknowable. Ignorance, as we all know, is purported to be bliss, and that sounds like biss. However, Bissonomy is not the embrace of ignorance, nor does it bring bliss. Rather, it is the acceptance of that which is known to be unknowable, and it brings inner-peace.
Bissonomy and Tubso seem to be connected. Both virtues were forgotten due to their rarity. Explaining what one was should hopefully tell us something about the other. But it’s even harder to say things about Tubso than about Bissonomy; the only thing that we know about Tubso is that its name is absurd. In a world where nominative determinism exists, however, this might be the only hint we need. I submit that Tubso is the virtue of absurdism, which surely has a place in Discworld. This fits with the koan framework, and establishes the desired connection between the two lost virtues; a koan’s answer is absurd and hints at strange knowledge, but truly understanding a koan requires the recognition that one can never understand it fully, if at all.
Of necessity, this theory is largely speculative. We may never know the true answer to this question, and that’s okay. And that, in turn, is Bissonomy.
You say that this feels like a riddle to you, but I would prefer to call it a koan. I think the best hint that we have to the nature of Bissonomy lies in the vagueness of its descriptions, and there is a Buddhist feel to this. There is also the sort of irony that Pratchett is famous for. Also, this seems like a useful starting point for another reason: there are only so many potential virtues that Bissonomy can plausibly be, and all the standard Western ones are already accounted for.
I suspect Bissonomy is the emotional acceptance of both that which is known to be true and that which is uncertain or unknowable. Ignorance, as we all know, is purported to be bliss, and that sounds like biss. However, Bissonomy is not the embrace of ignorance, nor does it bring bliss. Rather, it is the acceptance of that which is known to be unknowable, and it brings inner-peace.
Bissonomy and Tubso seem to be connected. Both virtues were forgotten due to their rarity. Explaining what one was should hopefully tell us something about the other. But it’s even harder to say things about Tubso than about Bissonomy, the only thing that we know about Tubso is that its name is absurd. In a world where nominative determinism exists, however, this might be the only hint we need. I submit that Tubso is the virtue of absurdism, which surely has a place in Discworld. This fits with the koan framework, and establishes the desired connection between the two lost virtues; a koan’s answer is absurd and hints at strange knowledge, but truly understanding a koan requires the recognition that one can never understand it fully, if at all.
Of necessity, this theory is largely speculative. We may never know the true answer to this question, and that’s okay. And that, in turn, is Bissonomy.
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.
I 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. (Faith is its sister virtue—don’t ask how they’re both able to be virtues at once despite their symmetrical nature, 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), is that it fails to explain the virtue of Tubso, and it seems to me like understanding one 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.
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.
I’m not very familiar with the series. However, I suspect that the virtue of Bissonomy is the virtue of acknowledging that which you do not understand, also known as epistemic humility. (Faith is its sister virtue—don’t ask how they’re both able to be virtues despite their symmetrical nature, that would mortally offend both of them!) The vague and unspecified nature of Bissonomy is its own clue, 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), is that it fails to explain the virtue of Tubso, and it seems to me like understanding one 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.
Another reason to be skeptical of my interpretation is that I unfortunately exhibit a supreme 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 for spoiling the fun.
Ultimately, we may never know. And that’s okay. And that’s Bissonomy.
A riddle for Lesswrong: what exactly is the virtue of Bissonomy?
When I read the article, I got the feeling that there were enough clues to extrapolate a solution in the same way that EY extrapolated the Dementors’ ‘true natures’. That this was a solvable riddle. I’ve got my suspicions, but I’d like to hear what you guys can come up with.
Bissonomy is the virtue of stability.
Specifically, bissonomy is the virtue of knowing (-nomy) how to attach yourself (“bissys” is the name for filaments by which certain bivalves attach themselves to rocks and other substrate) to some stable object.
Arguments:
The name. It basically tells you outright (and “bisso” is Portuguese for “bissys”, just in case).
She was turned into oysters—bivalves—which is a big hint.
She was punished for throwing a mole. What do moles do? They dig! They undermine and clearly, the virtue of stability couldn’t be seen undermining anything.
Two children is another hint at stability as families with two children neither increase nor decrease the population—they keep it stable.
She was forgotten—for the only thing constant in the world is change.
Sounds like a noodle virtue to me, or at least it uses the same basic idea for humour.
But if you want to keep in the spirit of EY’s dementors, the article writer does some wacky reasoning to end up roughly at the virtue of dietary restriction.
Terry Pratchett’s noodle implements generally make sense if you work them out. I doubt this is any different.
A-ha! That makes sense! Also, it’s actually an important virtue! People judge you on it!
You say that this feels like a riddle to you, but I would prefer to call it a koan. I think the best hint that we have to the nature of Bissonomy lies in the vagueness of its descriptions, as this is the sort of irony that Pratchett is famed for, and this sort of self-answering riddle has a Buddhist feel to it in turn. This also seems like a useful starting point for another reason: there are only so many potential virtues that Bissonomy can plausibly be, and the standard Western ones are already accounted for.
I suspect Bissonomy is the emotional acceptance of both that which is known to be true and that which is uncertain or unknowable. Ignorance, as we all know, is purported to be bliss, and that sounds like biss. However, Bissonomy is not the embrace of ignorance, nor does it bring bliss. Rather, it is the acceptance of that which is known to be unknowable, and it brings inner-peace.
Bissonomy and Tubso seem to be connected. Both virtues were forgotten due to their rarity. Explaining what one was should hopefully tell us something about the other. But it’s even harder to say things about Tubso than about Bissonomy; the only thing that we know about Tubso is that its name is absurd. In a world where nominative determinism exists, however, this might be the only hint we need. I submit that Tubso is the virtue of absurdism, which surely has a place in Discworld. This fits with the koan framework, and establishes the desired connection between the two lost virtues; a koan’s answer is absurd and hints at strange knowledge, but truly understanding a koan requires the recognition that one can never understand it fully, if at all.
Of necessity, this theory is largely speculative. We may never know the true answer to this question, and that’s okay. And that, in turn, is Bissonomy.
This sounds somewhat like a specialized form of the very Christian value of Resignation, specifically resignation towards the Ineffability of God and his Mysterious Ways, and the seemingly chaotic creation.
Then again God often plays a Dao-like “empty center that lets the wheel turn” in these sorts of doctrines.
You say that this feels like a riddle to you, but I would prefer to call it a koan. I think the best hint that we have to the nature of Bissonomy lies in the vagueness of its descriptions, and there is a Buddhist feel to this. There is also the sort of irony that Pratchett is famous for. Also, this seems like a useful starting point for another reason: there are only so many potential virtues that Bissonomy can plausibly be, and all the standard Western ones are already accounted for.
I suspect Bissonomy is the emotional acceptance of both that which is known to be true and that which is uncertain or unknowable. Ignorance, as we all know, is purported to be bliss, and that sounds like biss. However, Bissonomy is not the embrace of ignorance, nor does it bring bliss. Rather, it is the acceptance of that which is known to be unknowable, and it brings inner-peace.
Bissonomy and Tubso seem to be connected. Both virtues were forgotten due to their rarity. Explaining what one was should hopefully tell us something about the other. But it’s even harder to say things about Tubso than about Bissonomy; the only thing that we know about Tubso is that its name is absurd. In a world where nominative determinism exists, however, this might be the only hint we need. I submit that Tubso is the virtue of absurdism, which surely has a place in Discworld. This fits with the koan framework, and establishes the desired connection between the two lost virtues; a koan’s answer is absurd and hints at strange knowledge, but truly understanding a koan requires the recognition that one can never understand it fully, if at all.
Of necessity, this theory is largely speculative. We may never know the true answer to this question, and that’s okay. And that, in turn, is Bissonomy.
You say that this feels like a riddle to you, but I would prefer to call it a koan. I think the best hint that we have to the nature of Bissonomy lies in the vagueness of its descriptions, and there is a Buddhist feel to this. There is also the sort of irony that Pratchett is famous for. Also, this seems like a useful starting point for another reason: there are only so many potential virtues that Bissonomy can plausibly be, and all the standard Western ones are already accounted for.
I suspect Bissonomy is the emotional acceptance of both that which is known to be true and that which is uncertain or unknowable. Ignorance, as we all know, is purported to be bliss, and that sounds like biss. However, Bissonomy is not the embrace of ignorance, nor does it bring bliss. Rather, it is the acceptance of that which is known to be unknowable, and it brings inner-peace.
Bissonomy and Tubso seem to be connected. Both virtues were forgotten due to their rarity. Explaining what one was should hopefully tell us something about the other. But it’s even harder to say things about Tubso than about Bissonomy, the only thing that we know about Tubso is that its name is absurd. In a world where nominative determinism exists, however, this might be the only hint we need. I submit that Tubso is the virtue of absurdism, which surely has a place in Discworld. This fits with the koan framework, and establishes the desired connection between the two lost virtues; a koan’s answer is absurd and hints at strange knowledge, but truly understanding a koan requires the recognition that one can never understand it fully, if at all.
Of necessity, this theory is largely speculative. We may never know the true answer to this question, and that’s okay. And that, in turn, is 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.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/116456/meaning-of-onomy-ology-and-ography
I 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. (Faith is its sister virtue—don’t ask how they’re both able to be virtues at once despite their symmetrical nature, 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), is that it fails to explain the virtue of Tubso, and it seems to me like understanding one 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.
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.
What do you think? Tell us in a week at most, please?
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/116456/meaning-of-onomy-ology-and-ography
I’m not very familiar with the series. However, I suspect that the virtue of Bissonomy is the virtue of acknowledging that which you do not understand, also known as epistemic humility. (Faith is its sister virtue—don’t ask how they’re both able to be virtues despite their symmetrical nature, that would mortally offend both of them!) The vague and unspecified nature of Bissonomy is its own clue, 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), is that it fails to explain the virtue of Tubso, and it seems to me like understanding one 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.
Another reason to be skeptical of my interpretation is that I unfortunately exhibit a supreme 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 for spoiling the fun.
Ultimately, we may never know. And that’s okay. And that’s Bissonomy.