Page 248 - Microsoft Word - Belicena respaldo

Now, that we distinguished between the «two grades of the phenomenon», only remains
to clarify the assertion that I made in the beginning of this analysis that all law of the nature,
including those eminent, describe the casual behavior of the phenomenons of first grade of
determination. It is easy to understand and accept this because when a phenomenon
intervenes a determination of second grade, the natural sense of the mechanical concatenation
has been temporarily altered in favor of an irresistible Will. In that case the phenomenon will
not be «natural» even if it seems to, but it will be provided of a superimposed intentionality of

mere evil character for the man.

In other way, the phenomenon of first grade, is always manifested complete on its
functionality, which is the direct expression of its essence, and which will be always possible
to reduce mathematically to an infinite number of «laws of the nature». When the phenomenon
of first grade is especially appreciated by one law of the nature, which is eminent because
certain interesting aspect outstands to the observer, it is evident that it is not treating
with the entire phenomenon, only with that «aspect» of the same. In that case it must be
accepted the unfortunately fact, that from the phenomenon will be only perceived an illusion.

Sensorially mutilated, gnoseologically deformed, epistemologically masked, it is not
strange that the Aryan Indians qualified as Maya, illusion, to the common perception of a first
grade phenomenon.

I will propose now an interrogation, which answer will allow to face the problem of the
«preeminence of the cultural premises», based in the last conclusions: «If every phenomenon of
first grade appears necessarily complete (for example: at 6 A.M 'the sun rises')», What is the
specific cause that the apprehension through the «cultural or scientific model» prevents to treat
with the phenomenon on its integrity, and it is limited to partial aspects of the same? (when we
say for example: «the earth's rotation is the cause that has produced the effect that at 6 A.M
the sun made itself visible in the east horizon»). In this last example is evident that at the
moment to explain the phenomenon by an «eminent law» it is not more than the reference to
certain partial aspects («the earth's rotation») leaving behind–without seeing– the same
phenomenon («the sun»). The answer to the proposed question take us to treat a fundamental
principle of the structural epistemological theory: the relation adverted between aspects of
a phenomenon, mathematically quantifiable as a «Law of the Nature», is originated in

the preeminence of the cultural premises from which the reason modifies the
perception of the phenomenon itself.

Without having to say that this occurs by the «masquerading effect» that the reason
causes in every reflexive image created by the conscious subject: the reason «responds to the
interrogation», i.e., the reflections of the conscious subject in which lies immersed the lost

248