You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Ritalin comments on Open thread, Nov. 17 - Nov. 23, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: MrMind 17 November 2014 08:25AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (322)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Ritalin 18 November 2014 02:38:19PM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 November 2014 09:09:57PM 6 points [-]

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.
Comment author: Artaxerxes 19 November 2014 01:03:56AM *  2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: DanielLC 22 November 2014 01:22:33AM 0 points [-]

Terry Pratchett's noodle implements generally make sense if you work them out. I doubt this is any different.

Comment author: Ritalin 19 November 2014 03:52:09AM *  -1 points [-]

A-ha! That makes sense! Also, it's actually an important virtue! People judge you on it!

Comment author: 27chaos 18 November 2014 10:05:17PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Ritalin 19 November 2014 12:02:39AM -1 points [-]

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.

Comment author: 27chaos 18 November 2014 08:29:31PM 0 points [-]

What do you think? Tell us in a week at most, please?