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
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.
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 Metaphysics
as vacuous placeholder © 2016 Victor Langheld |