2._ Newness

At previous times, significant changes only in the lives of the concrete individuals were perceived. The evident changes in human history could be considered as mere superficial episodes on a permanent plot. History seemed cyclical, --as cyclical are the day and the night, and cyclical they are the stations--, since after each civilization happened another one of similar characteristics. And the Nature essentially seemed always the same, in spite of the local changes, "superficial and fleeting "caused by catastrophes, or the erosion, or the action of the alive beings. But, fundamentally, it could be thought that the Earth always was there, with seas, mountains, rivers, valleys, etc., always similar, inhabited by alive beings, animals and humans, always similar, behaving always similarly. "Nothing there is new under the sun". And the changes that were noticed did not seem to really produce new features, but to correspond to repetitive behaviors. Over everything, the stars unquestionablily seemed immutable and eternal, remote and impassible in their divine perfection; until their same movements, supposedly of perfect geometry, were rather manifestations of stability and rest.

But we know very well that a movement can have the appearances of the rest, if is observed to a "temporary scale" very different to his intrinsic. Thus, the vegetables seem us at first sight motionless, since they have an intrinsic temporary scale --a vital rhythm-- very different from ours. During the interval of time in which we dedicate our attention to a flower, this seems us static, as if out of paper or plastic; we know that if subsequently, at tip of hours or days, we observe it again, she there will be various, as alive being that is, but this movement do not we note it with facility inside our temporary scale. If we film it and we see the movie to rapid rhythm, to another temporary scale, we will see the flower sprouting, opening, unfolding, agitating, with a surprising vitality not at all static.

Then something thus is what it happens --now we know it-- with the nature. When the scientific research has advanced the sufficient thing, and has been able to explore the past in enormous time intervals for the human scale, it has drawn up a "film" of the past that exhibits the huge biological and cosmic precedent evolution, in that we are inserted like its very small last photogram.

In these evolutions, the changes are radical and successive; the general plot is not static nor cyclical of any way. There were times in which there was no human civilization. There were times in which there were no human beings. There were times in which there was no animal of now known. There were times in which all the alive beings were microscopic. There were times in which there were no alive beings. There were times in which there was no Earth nor Sun. There were times in which there were no stars. There were times in which there were not composed nor chemical elements like the present ones. And all this in inverse temporary succession... until arriving at an initial moment in that there was "practically nothing", neither space nor time at least, but... a pure potentiality?

If this great one "film" we see it imaginarily since its start, to cosmic temporary scale, that is, to a sufficiently rapid velocity, we will see to sprout and to be unfolded the Universe, as an enormous flower. A second of movie would be able to equal to a century of our temporary scale; to this velocity, we would delay some five years in seeing the entire "movie", without taking a moment of rest; and all the human history would appear only in the last minute of projection. Surely, there would be shaken sections of film more than others. After a long lapse --perhaps of several "days or weeks of projection"-- in which practically does not happen anything, a great activity begins suddenly: they appear new beings, new phenomena, new surprising behaviors that we could not have suspected previously.

Thus, probably, it would be the moment of the appearance of the first alive beings, and also the moment of the appearance of the first human cultures. We would have the sensation that somewhat new, radically new, has sprouted suddenly in each case; and since this new does not be able but to be referred to its origins, by different that have been, we would have that to conclude that has "emerged" of some way of them. What there was before was evolving, changing slowly, insensibly --o perhaps quickly, sometimes-- until it has arrived a critical moment, it has reached a critical state, it has transposed a threshold, and --as an explosion-- another thing has emerged.