While you are at it define "God" or "The One".

But if you assume that "God" is the neo-platonic "The One", i.e. a definition of all that is and all that can be, then anything defined as a mistake is also contained; however it is that you define mistake.

I subscribe to very much a Rupert Sheldrake view of the evolution of the Universe (and thus also the One), humanity's evolution is probably analogous to the evolution of the consciousness of the One.

This to me is where the vision of a perfect pure goodness and light of a creator God is wholly flawed. Clearly there can be gods or entities that can encompass only concepts that we as humans consider good, virtuous, loving etc. But the Whole contains all.

The other frame of reference is to define all "good" things as existence, and all bad as absence or a lack of good. Thus we have The One surrounded by a void. But to me even void must have substance, and if it can tangibly produce concepts (such as fear, harm, anger) then these are real and must form part of the One.

Thing is as Gonzukes wisely points out. What is a mistake? Every "mistake" led to here and now, and here and now is where we are and what we are. If mistakes are bad then you are implying that here and now is a mistake and not what we should be - I am not sure what meaning that has.

With much thought I would say we are becoming. Not having yet become, but continuing, is the process of becoming, it is not a mistake. Which is what I think everyone here is agreeing on.

I would just personally disagree in "The Dragon and the Hourglass" quote. Which implies God is separate from the sword or stands outside of "creation". But who knows what I may think tomorrow.