Original incompleteness

i.e. ‘sin’, i.e. failure ‘to hit the mark’



A monad, i.e. a singularity (such as an algorithm or fractal) as closed systems, is incomplete (so Goedel). A monad (such as the ‘one (or mono) God’ as creation algorithm) is incomplete because it cannot prove itself as a differential, hence identifiable reality. In other words, for a monad to become complete it has to prove itself, i.e. be made real as a differential. And that happens only via random contact with an alternate, to wit, with ‘an other’ (i.e. a ‘second’ or relative, and which happens as mutated copy of itself).’


The original creation algorithm, to wit God (i.e. the Creation Matrix or Brahman) as mono-system is fundamentally incomplete. To complete itself, that is to say, to make itself real and identifiable it needs to copy and mutate (i.e. self-elaborate, i.e. relativize) itself (zillions of times, see the sculpture ‘Separation’ in Victor’s Way) and then contrive a random collision between its (zillion related, hence relative) mutated copies. However, as the originating monad (or algorithm) copies (i.e. self-elaborates) itself (‘in its own image’) in order to become at least relatively complete, meaning real and identifiable, it copies its incompleteness also.


If incompleteness is translated as ‘sin’, formerly understood to mean ‘missing the mark’ (possibly meaning unmarked (Sanskrit: nirguna) or unconditional) but derived from the Latin sons, meaning ‘guilty’, then all copies originating from the incomplete (monad) originator are born with Original Sin (i.e. because including the incompleteness of the originating algorithm/God). So St Augustine correctly stated that all humans are born with Original Sin. However he got it right but for the wrong reason.


St Paul’s true statement, to wit ‘Whereof by one man sin (i.e. incompleteness) came into the world…’, was deliberately misinterpreted by him (+ St Augustine + the Church, right up to the current Pope) to mean that it was ‘one man’ (i.e. the adam) who engineered that sin (by disregarding God’s health warning vis à vis the Tree of Good and Bad) rather than the sin (as incompleteness) of the incomplete God who engineered him. In

     3 initial incompletenesses (i.e. original sins) are indicated in the ancient Jewish Garden in Eden ‘crime and punishment’ fable. The presence of the Tree of Life indicates temporal incompleteness. The Tree of Good (Tow) and Bad (Ra) indicates (adult) judgemental incompleteness (i.e. indecision). The admission by the Elohim that ‘it is not good for the man to be alone’ indicates the fundamental incompleteness of monads.

other words, sin, meaning incompleteness, was first manifested in the world by God’s first (relative) self-manifestation, that is to say, by the adam, and, obviously, by each one of his off-spring. The notion that ‘one man’s’ judgement error caused incompleteness (≈ sin) was deliberate Jewish (political) misinterpretation. The Jews couldn’t blame very well their Gods (i.e. the Elohim) for incompleteness (i.e. sin ≈ for missing the mark, more specifically, for being without a mark) so they invented the defenceless (because a relative elaboration or image) man as scapegoat for the Elohims’ fundamental incompleteness (i.e. sin).


That Paul (and the Church as a whole) should blame the scapegoat man for his ‘sin’ of incompleteness (and later on praise the scapegoat messiah for achieving completeness) but not his incomplete originator was very clever and highly effective guilt derived and driven politics.


Obviously it is God’s incompleteness that drives him/her (and all his/her copies as local elaborations) to engineer completeness.


Just like the early Sumerians and Jews the creators of the early Upanishads had observed the major two incompletenesses (i.e. as Original Sins) of the everyday world (though not (yet) of the Brahman/Atman/God), namely lack of realness and of identity. Hence their stated goal was release (i.e. moksha) from (the pain of) incompleteness by achieving the (possible joy of) completeness of sat-cit-ananta, roughly translated as is’ness (or being)-knowledge (or consciousness)- infinity (or timelessness). It was the Shakyamuni who abstracted ‘conditioned arising’ as primary incompleteness. None of the former, including the very pessimistic Shakyamuni, were prepared to acknowledge the positive/optimistic (i.e. as life giving, albeit paid for with pain) drive of incompleteness.

The ‘conditioned arising’ (i.e. via relative momentary contact) of living systems as fundamental incompleteness was first proposed 2500 years ago by the Scythian Recluse, i.e. the Shakyamuni, later renamed ‘The Buddha.’  Incompleteness (specifically the incompleteness (i.e. as non-abidingness) of permanence ≈ momentariness) was later renamed ‘emptiness’ by Nagarjuna (Sanskrit: sunjata, see the Heart Sutra), the Vedanta fixated Brahmin scholar who masqueraded as Buddhist monk in order to subvert and destroy the Shakyamuni’s teaching about the fundamental cause of unhappiness, namely, as restated in everyday terms, namely that ‘the price of lunch was too high.’ Most normal humans realize that ‘there’s no such thing as a free lunch.’ The Shakyamuni and his Upanishadic pals believed that the price of lunch (i.e. life) was too high and that it was better ‘not to have lived at all’ than to have lived badly. Later generations of corrupt priests, needing to make a fast buck, promised a happy afterlife (such as the Tushita heavens and sat-cit-ananda).


Dual incompleteness : Between a rock and a hard place


© 2016 Victor Langheld