Sabado, Hunyo 1, 2013

Formation, Fascism and Creativity

To some, a balanced formation has become more of an ideology than a guiding principle of formation. The idea of balance has altered the system of formation, shifting the weight from studies to eclectic activity: sports, music, cooking, etc. The ideology of balance has tipped away at the philosophical formation of students, turning them away from intellectual endeavors to pursue different activities than immersing themselves into the activity of thought.

Such has not changed the consciousness of students and formands and only retains the old consciousness of students as they despise their studies and brand their own intellectual pursuits as the reminder of an old fascist intellectual regime. In its own right, from concept to ideology, the ideology of balance which I shall brand it, has not transformed people as individuals but as artificial selves, exploring other areas where their heart does not want in order to satisfy the ideology of balance. This is not a reaction to an old fascism but a new form of religious fascism from within our institution for they have not chosen their paths but on the contrary it has been chosen for them

When formation becomes a tool to change the personality of an individual to a prescribed universal trait, formation ceases to be formation. The production of selves and personalities has become mainstay in some institution that the religious sector also has become prey into the temptation of transforming human beings into uniform clean cut individuals. Such is the result of over recording, over categorizing and overreaction to some individual issues. The human being has become a compartmentalized entity that must be put into a particular cabinet and whose desire must be channeled. Such practice sucks the creative powers of an individual and transforms people into a mass of religious zombies, trained to memorize and not to think, to repeat and not to create.

Religious Fascism starts with formation. When formation ceases to be formation it becomes a fascist mechanism of control and repression. The artificial production of subjects has become mainstay for the sake of objectivity. Objectivity becomes the universal principle and when personality becomes an object, the subject will cease to be a subject and becomes an object as rock is a rock. Such is not the end of formation; its end is to make sure that the individual utilizes his/her own creative powers. "Each according to his means, to each according to his needs," as the Anarchist saying goes. To end religious fascism means a grand transformation of ourselves with the formator and the formand equal in struggle void of authority.


In the past post, I may have left you wondering. What course of action shall we take? If to avoid religious fascism meant to change how we do formation and how we perceive human personalities, our concept of authority has to evolve from pyramidal to a circle where the formator and the formand are both under formation (which we actually do). That is the first step. However, at the second moment of authority seeps in and changes the view of the formator. He sees the formand as sheep that must be uniform and without blemish. He begins to change everyone, removing the ones with blemish sacrificing one for the sake of the uniformity of the many. He will instill herd mentality; hierarchical thinking that for the sake of order the formand sacrifices his own creative power. 

When creative power is repressed it is channeled into another form, a more destructive form where the dream is shifted into nightmare. And the only desire of the individual is to alleviate himself from a pain unknown. You might call this a form of schizophrenia, a psychosis. But for the sake of order and uniformity, neurosis becomes a virtue; their reality is reality with the opposite pole of the psychotic, the schizo. Obsessed with order, formation becomes a subtext for reform and correction. But formation is not correction or reform, the paradox of formation is that it forms not because of the formator but because of the formand. If the polarization of a mechanistic formation is bridged then, there is no psychotic or neurotic but all human, individuals, diverse and not uniform.

Let us return to the course of action we should take. Let me repeat the anarchist saying: "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Through this, formation becomes a creative force and channels the individual's power to creation and not destruction.

Biyernes, Setyembre 7, 2012

Ang Pambansang Pampugot (The National Razor)


I.
Execution via Guillotine
Punong-puno ng tao ang masikip na plaza ng isang maliit na bayan. Malapit sa simbahan na linya ang mga sacristan kasama ang pari handa sa mga gamit. Suot ng pari ang sutana at stola na mukhang magmimisa ngunit wala namang altar. Dumating ang isang karwahe. makaraan ng ilang minuto sinundan ito ng isang tropa ng sundalong may dalang sibat at baril. Nagsigawan ang mga tao, may halong mura at sigawang lumalabas sa kanilang bibig halatang galit at poot ang nilalaman ng kanilang mga salita. Mayroon namang nagtapon ng bulok na kamatis, repolyo, mansanas, at iba pang bulok na pagkain. Gumalaw ang mga sundalo tinutukan ng baril at hinarang ng sibat ang mga taong tila bang handa na mag-riot sa plaza. Sa gitna ay isang entablado na yari sa kahoy na may isang bloke ng kahoy na dalawampu’t apat na pulgada ang taas at labing-limag pulgada naman ang kapal. Yari ito sa isang matigas na kahoy sa gubat halatang bago at wala pang kupas ni bakas ng barnis. Lumabas sa karwahe ang isang tao na may suot na chalecong yari sa seda. halata sa pagpikit ng kaniyang mga mata ang tagal nito sa piitan. Halatang-halata sa kaniyang hitsura ang tagal at hirap sa piitan at sa huling sinag ng araw masisilayan ng mga anghel ang siang presong haharap sa hatol ng kamatayan.
            Nagpabendisyon ang bilango sa sa pari na siyan namang binigay at sinamahan ng siang maikling kumpisal. Dinala ito sa entablado ng isang opisyal na todo sa postura suot ang putting pilukang pinulbohan at tinalian ng pukulot-kulot, suot din nito ang isang gintong medalya na nakalagay sa kaniyang dibdib. Suot din nito ang putting-puti na jacket na mayroong pang suot na pulang doublet sa loob. Ipinakita nito sa bilanggo ang blokeng kahoy at isang malaking lalaking mayroong malalaking mga bisig dala ang isang palakol. Pous-vez vous me pardoner? (Mapapatwad mo ba ako?) Tanong nito. Tumango ang bilanggo, senyales na sagot nito’y Qui (oo). Nilatag niya kaniyang leeg sa bloke sabay nagkrus ito. Bumagsak ang palakol. Napunit ang balat at laman. Sumirit ang dugo sa mukha ng berdugong pumupugot. Nanginginig ang bilanggo, gusto nitong sumigaw ngunit pinigilan ng nanonoot na buhay ang boses na sinisigaw ang huling sekundo ng buhay. Isa pa, natanggal ang buto ngunit may natira pang laman. Matigas ang laman ng leeg dahil binabalutan nito ang buto na nagsisilbing koneksyon ng utak sa katawan, Sumirit ang dugo sa mga taong naggigigil sa dugo. Merde (isang murang Pranses) sigaw ng berdugo at sabay nitong pinalakol ang natirang laman sa leeg at nahulog ito nagpagulong-gulong sa lupa ang ulong naubusan na ng dugo.
karaniwan itong eksena sa isang pampukling pagpatay sa bansang Pransiya at sa iba pang bayan. Kadalasanay ay isang maharalika lamang ang pinupugutan ng ulo at ang mga nasa ibabang uri ay binibigti na lamang. Dadaan ang maraming reporma sa lupa, iba’t-ibang mga kautusan, digmaan at mga pangyayari ngunit ang pamamaraan ng pagkitil ay iisa pa rin. Hiwalay ang mayaman sa mahirap

II.

Vive la liberte sigaw ng mahirap habang nagpapaputok ng baril at sinusugod ang kastilyo ng Bastille. Oras na ng pagbabago at pagsira sa luma at bulok na sistema ng mga hari. Vive la egalite sigaw ng madla habang kinikitil ang mga bantay at pinugutan ng ulo ang gobernador ng kastilyo. Vive la revolution, sigaw ng lahat habang sinusugod ang Bastille.
            Hinuli ang hari, kinulong at pina-walang bahala ito ang hatol ng buong bayan: Kamatayan! Ngunit paano? Dito darating si Dr. Guillotin. Isang doctor at director ng kagawaran ng kalinisan si Guillotin. Ayon kay Carlyle, binigay sa kaniya ang trabaho na makagawa ng isang makinang makakapugot ng ulo na walang sakit.[1] Siya namang ginawa ng magiting na doctor at ipinangalan sa sarili na tila na anak nitong babae ang aparatong papatay ng walang habas ito ang La Guillotine. Mayroon itong taas na tatlo hanggang sa limang metro at may malaking blade na nakalagay sa iasng pabigat na umaabot sa lima o anim na kilo. Mahuhulog ito sa ulo ng mabilis at siya namang bagsak nito sa isang lalagyan sumisirit ang dugo ng putol na ulo at leeg na kung minsang ay pumipikit-pikit pa ang mga mata.
            Nakita sa makinang ito na ang pagkapantay-pantay ng lahat ng tao. Ipinanganak na hubad at mamamatay din sa iisang paraan. Itinapon ng guillotine ang lumang sistema ng pagparusa ng kamatayan. Mayaman man o mahirap makikita ang iyong ulo sa loob ng isang basket ang katawan ilalagay na lang sa isang kabaong at ililibing kasama ng iyong ulong nakabalot sa tela. Ito ang hustisyang umuusbong sa ika-18 na siglo. Ito ang ideang inilahad ng mga unang naniwala sa demokrasya, iisang batas at iisang parusa. Nakatayo ang aparato sa iisang entablado naghihintay ng puputalan nitong ulo at siya naman kaluluwa na itatapon sa purgatoryo. Tapos na ang hustisya ng tao simula na ng hustisya ng Diyos. Nakatayo ang aparato, hindi namimili mayaman, mahirap, maharlika, Katoliko, Protestante, may Diyos o walang Diyos. Hihiwain nito ang ulo ng sinumang lalabag sa batas. Wala itong mata, wala itong damdamin. Hindi ito hihingi ng tawad wala itong emosyon. Tatayo ito bilang imahe ng batas na walang kinaiilingan at walang sinasanto. Bulag ang babaeng may hawak ng timbangan ng batas. Hindi ito titingin sa ginto at pilak ng tao. Walang awa nitong ihuhulog ang palakol ng hustisya sa taong hindi susunod sa batas ng bayan. Nakaabang lamang ito sa dulo ng entablado hawak ang taling pumipigil sa pintuan ng mundo ng buhay at ng kabilang buhay at ng hustisya ng tao sa hustisya ng diyos. Tatatak sa ating kamalayan ang aparatong ito bilang simbulo ng pagkapantay-pantay. Iisang batas, iisang parusa iyon ang gustong isigaw ng aparatong gawa sa kahoy at bakal.    


[1] Thomas Carlyle, The French Revolution: A History (New York: Random House, 2002), 106-107, 121.

Lunes, Mayo 14, 2012

A Dialogue between Fray Timoteo and Fray Geronimo


Thirty Minutes after Sext[1] during the Midday refection[2]

Fray Timoteo (FT): What Barbary! The revolutionaries have destroyed the church of St. Thomas and no one survived.
Fray Geronimo (FG): Indeed what Barbary.
FT: God has punished those friars in black and white for speculating too much about the universe looking at the stars and writing about them. It is with their intellectual stubbornness that God has decided to smite them with atrocity of the rebels.
FG: Dear brother tell me what those Friars in black and white do everyday. I suppose that they did not do anything that would displease God and instead a more pleasing act is done within their midst.
FT: From what I hear about them from eyewitness accounts, they spent most of their time in their scriptoria writing treatises and then printing them. The sin here is that most of their time is spent in that philosophical adventure. Indeed it is a sin, a sin of pride. Have not the LORD said that he has hidden truth from the learned and gave it to the childlike?  Dear brother, the sin against God’s mystery is being done in that wretched place. Let me tell you more for you are in want of more. They even speculate about the Universe, Stars et cetera. Have they no time for prayer? It seems to me that they are indulged under the ecstasy of pagan knowledge that God has slipped away from their minds and hearts. I pray for their souls. Requiem donna eis domine.
F.G Brother such pessimism has entered thy heart! What has made you so infuriated about speculating? What should we do then? I myself am writing a treatise defending a particular position in the philosophy of St. Tomas (whose Church was destroyed). But brother what a proposition! Death! Destruction! What is your point Timoteo?
FT: I have been in this monastery more than you Geronimo. I have worked the fields. I made the oven and all the clay instruments we have. Those were good times. We pray the lauds with gladness in our hearts and recite the compline with the hope of God’s continuing sustenance for the life we offer to him through our bodies. Indeed it was noble times.
FG: Do other brothers go to the scriptorium?
FT: we never had a library before. We don’t have enough money to buy books from the bookseller. But the wisdom of Tertullian whose name I have ascribed to be my monastic name said: Believe in order to understand and then stop! The wisdom in those lines was endless and I have taken it as the supreme axiom of my monastic life. You ask whether they work in the scriptorium. The last abbot called them the “knowledgeable scoundrels.” He never expelled them but he distrusted them and ordered strict penances from them. Do you remember Fray Paulus who was sentenced with flagellation for writing a treatise against a saint?
FG do you consider then that the acts of these people who dedicated themselves in the academic labors as mere persons who avoid the rigors of physical labor which according to you is the prime of religious life?
FT: indeed you grasp my point all too well my brother. Christianity is not founded on philosophical search on truth. Rather it is through the Truth itself which habitavit in nobis. Moreover, it is not through Greek philosophy or Scholastic ambitions that this church stood. It is through the blood of the martyrs along with the king of martyrs. Do you read in the martyrology the violence of ancient Rome under the ecstasy of blood? Now, I suppose that you are convinced of my point that this church survived because of the martyrs and not through your academic labors.
FG: splendid usage of the martyrology Timoteo. Thirty years of attending prime has shaped your mind in the acts of the martyrs. However, do you not remember when the emperor issued the decree of Milan in which Christian and pagans lived together?
FT: yes but I don’t get your point.
FG: listen, after the fall of Rome did not the pagans blamed the Christians for it downfall? What if the Church Doctor did not write De Civitate Dei to defend our faith then pagan mobs would be destroying churches. The church won’t survive at all, you may not be aware of this fact but it is also with the effort so some intellectuals that this church was able to survive.
FT: indeed what do you propose?
FG: you claim the friars in black and white were not humble and thus a sin of pride……….
 At this moment Fray Timoteo stood up and said in a loud voice
FT: a sin against the vow of poverty!
FG: indeed what is your point; a breech against the vows?
FT: Fray your insistent position on the importance of studies proves of your ulterior motive for you participate in this sin. You indulged in the study of pagan writers and it would presume that you have read more of these people than looking into your own. Don’t you realize thus sick vanity? Aristotle and Plato have passed away fray. The world has descended into a new paganism. Go outside! Women are selling themselves out for money, they throw the sanctity of their own virginity for want of pleasure or a vain indulging of the passions. Even the apostle tells us in his speech to the Greeks about the vanity of their gods made of gold and silver. Fray you are becoming more pagan as you read them [the pagan writers]. Save thyself remember the Psalm: in his riches man lacks wisdom he is like the beast that are destroyed. Take brother this psalm that you may not be enticed by the hollow riches of your pagan philosophy let the friars in black and white suffer from their won vanity of intellect and let us enjoy the never ending sustenance of the Lord in saecula saecolorum.
FG:  indeed what brilliant position you have defended. However, let me ask you to expose on what you said a while ago on “looking into your own,” may you be so kind so as to expound my dear brother.
FT: what has paganism brought you my brother? You are now clouded with the concepts of Esse and ens, fray you are being too much obsessed. What I was discussing is a very important point in our monastic life. We go to the inner labyrinth, the very fiber of our being. From the world, we search ourselves have not one of your philosopher told you that? The Church doctor has instructed us to think that way. We look, perceive and feel things outside and we infer through the lack or the scarcity of the world thus, a realm of our own scarcity and an awareness of God’s own omnipotence. Through this and only through this can we go and proclaim the gospel. You may ask my dear brother why? Pardon me from assuming that you would ask. The gospel is founded on truth for dominus, domine nostri, omnipotens est semper eum veritatem esse.  Who were the disciples? Are they learned men who studied Homeric Greek or Ciceronian Latin? Are they disciples of Platonism? Are they students of great Jewish Rabbis? Are they experts on the law? They were fisher men, tax collectors, et cetera. How were they able to speak Greek? Did they read the works of Plato? Did they study the histories of Herodotus and Lucan or went to study the sublimity of Homeric poetry and Ciceronian eloquence? It was with the fire of the Holy Spirit that they received such ability. They were simple men but the LORD God was in their hearts. Only in such sublime awareness of the mystical can we comprehend Perfectissimus Deus.
FG: again brother the way you delivered yourself to me says more of your enthusiasm for the vocation of the Monachus yet, may I ask you.
FT: Let it be then.
FG: Suppose that St. Jerome never learned the language of the Hebrews and without knowledge of their syntax can he translate the Bible?
FT: Not at all that would be utterly impossible. I can’t see where is this going brother?
FG: As you have said a while ago those who embark in the field of study partake of the sin of pride and a sin against the vow of poverty by possessing more in the skill of philosophizing or the faculty of knowing languages. Yet a while ago, you showed me in a rhetorical fashion par excellence the concept of humility. You are no idiot on syntax rather you know how to use it better than our prior. I guess in that fashion also you preached the gospel with eloquence. I know oftentimes in when you preach in the town your preaching would draw a crowd. Is it not a property you owned? So you violated the vow of poverty?
FT: how can that be? I used my words for the greater glory of God. How can then it be a breech in my vows?
FG: precisely God has bestowed us with different gifts as much as another person is gifted with prophetic vision. Part of his will is to bestow it on someone like Augustine or Thomas who in their status as learned in both Christian and pagan knowledge was able to produce work of such sublimity that they were able to fuse seemingly contradicting positions. Then, to people like us, we are no Augustine or Ambrose or Albertus Magnus and moreover, we are not the apostles who received the fire of the Holy Spirit rather we are individuals still in the process of knowing. We accumulate the skills through pedagogical means like reading Horace or Virgil and studying their syntax. There are various pearls of wisdom in the world and books are to be seen everywhere nowadays (ever since that German invented that machine). A few pieces of silver are enough to procure a copy of the latest works. I suppose it is not a breech of the vows at all.
FT: I still don’t get the point of your love for worldly knowledge and how it applies to our life in the monastery and our task to proclaim the gospel. For what I know these people (those who dedicate themselves to study) have no Amor for the people outside. They prefer the confines of their chambers and scriptoriums rather than the city. They look towards the heavens or they look too much on the earth. Who remains in the middle? Are they who remain pygmies or swine that dwell the earth naked and covered in mud? Remember what the scripture tells us: the LORD has hidden this from the wise and the intelligent.  What is required of us is not to dwell on unraveling the mysteries of the cosmos but rather to the contemplation of what is within as scripture says go into your room.
FG: The sun and the stars are never sublime in themselves; rather they are part of a greater reality. If we do not know the intertwining participation of the divine essence with that of the individual things how can we tell the people that all things are good. If I am present before a council assembly how can I tell the abbot of the destruction of monasteries or what if St. Boniface never understood the attitude of the Germanic tribes and he did not cut the Oak of Thor? Would the pagan Germans listen to him?
FT: he may be mangled or worse he may be killed.
FG: indeed, you know all too well that to understand means to immerse oneself in the field or in the field of study. I do not undermine the capacity of faith rather with reason and observation one can encounter the divine in his sublime personality as the creator. I do not propose that reason overcomes faith rather the two complement each other. The former looks at God as in his immanence thus, knowing that he has created all things. The latter tells us of God’s transcendence and mystery we then realize that all our reason is but a mere looking glass at unable to grasp the whole thing. Without this intertwining faculties, we cannot preach. Indeed to love God is better than just knowing him, however, as Augustine says how can we love what we do not know? Moreover, how can we instruct people if we ourselves have not undergone this stage ourselves? You say that service in the town is better than the confines of the scriptorium. But, let me tell you without the labors of the people who studied then there would be no doctrine at all. Indeed Jesus revealed himself to the innocent yet it is our task o understand what he has revealed through the various writings they have left. The heresies of the past remind us to watchful in our words and if I go into the field and proclaim that Jesus is not the son of God like the arians proclaimed then I led the people to the wrong path indeed I have faith but the wrong understanding of revelation which is a great sin and then made greater by leading other people to the same error.
FT: you have demonstrated your point well my brother. However, I am sad to tell you that there are more than great things to do than just sitting in the refectory and discuss these things. Time runs like a river and it does not come back so it would be better to depart from here and continue if God will allow us. But, I do admire your point brother and I shall hold on to mine until I have perfectly grasped what you have just said.
FG: the world will move in a continuous flux of events but remember brother as we depart that God will bless us in what we do for the greater glory of his name. As we proceed to the field lat us put into our hearts that grants us the wisdom to proclaim and the worldly knowledge we accumulate are but means for the great glory of our Lord. Deo Gratias

J.R. Garcia
2011




[1]Midday prayer
[2] Common meal

The Lynching of Vicente


Foreword      

These series of events happened in a town outside of Manila and most probably in the provinces where the queer practices of the locales were not yet exposed to the general public. This account was left to us only by a friar who has heard of the terrible execution of a man anonymously named Vicente by the locales in which the motive was not yet known to us this day. The friar remained anonymous to us for the original draft of the account was written on cheap local paper and deteriorated in time the signature was lost as well as any record of the friar who passed on to us the events left in this account. As the friar’s position was ambivalent, it is recommended that the reader should not trust the account of the friar as to his very lucid and detailed portrayal of the said events. The tendency of the friar to side with the locales was yet ambivalent to us. The version in this paper follows the original format of the friar that is using dashes in dialogue instead of quotation marks.

I.
            The cold morning after the end of the typhoon weeks ago ushered in the new day. The farmers of barrio San A-[1] were ready to till the land and start to rebuild what was lost due to the destruction of the typhoon. As was the tradition, they had the usual thanksgiving mass. The town was under a parish of the next town a few days walk; instead they have a rickety chapel made of bamboo and a crucifix donated by the priest of the nearest town. The priest said mass. Wearing a red stole (for it was a martyr’s feast), the priest gave a thirty minute homily on the perseverance of the townspeople in enduring the typhoon among themselves. The barrio San A- was founded a hundred years ago and as they say (from locales we have interviewed so far) it was due to a particular St. A- who made an apparition with the original founders that inspired the barrio’s name. We really don’t think it is possible for such an event to take place, for the accounts of farmers and petty townsfolk are as unreliable as the words of a Sangley. The priest of the nearest town usually pays this barrio a visit, something these people want. The end of the typhoon signalled the need to thank the good Lord for his unending grace upon these people that nevertheless, even if their being uneducated never was a struggle to grasp the limitless fountain of God’s grace a gift that can be only achieved through faith. I really wish I could say mass in that area which would have been the apex of my priestly vocation. Yet after the said event that shocked my ears, it would have been necessary to postpone this endeavour. How did that event happen who was Vicente? The man who was tried, lynched and eventually killed by the townsfolk. The source by which this has come down to us came from a reliable cart driver of our barrio who was there to deliver his cartload of firewood to the locales and was able to see with his own eyes the events of Vicente’s plight into his own death. I have somehow managed to acquire the few pages of his account and have written down the things he has told me after the lynching of Vicente.

II.
-from the account of Edgar Lorenzo, the cart driver[2]
            I came for barrio San A- after the typhoon in order to sell some firewood for the farmers. I have heard of the priest’s thanksgiving mass and I suppose to expect him there to ride my cart going back. Unluckily to keep with his practice of the vow of poverty he walked back to the next town with two guards armed with rifles to guide him in his way. Along the way, I met this man. He wore a white shirt with long sleeves folded up to his elbows. The dirty white appearance of his shirt made him look like a weary traveller so I said:
-Kuya, I can take you to the next town, hop in if you want.
He looked at me and that was it. He continued to walk towards the barrio whose chimneys made of brick pugon stoves were visible making it look like I was a few meters nearer. I arrived at sun down and began to sell the firewood to the locales who were very much happy to see my cartload of wood (the wood of their barrio was still wet because of the typhoon). Then the same man entered the vicinity of the barrio. Immediately I asked Mang Tasyo.
-Lo, do you know him?
-Nah! Never seen his face in me entire life must be a traveller of some sorts looking for some hot sopas, a cup of rice and a banig to sleep in but I can’t offer him a thing nor give him a peso I don’t even have a cinco to spend on tuba how can I even feed a guest.
He then laughed so hard that the sound of his laughter revealed a man who is into chewing tobacco and the occasional breaks into cough, his yellowed teeth and the stench of chewed tobacco reeks that I cannot stand the smell. The man entered into the town so calm that he never perturbed anyone with his entrance.
The account of the loyal cart driver gave me the stimulus to prompt myself to continue his account with what he told during our conversations.
            The humble town never had a proper church or a proper convent to have a priest with them. Instead, they complement the lack of God’s servant through the wisdom of elder members and the cabeza del barrio who in their efforts to hold together the whole barrio have made explicit directions on their livelihood. I need not to enumerate them but the necessary thing to take into account is the dependence of the people on their elders and the cabeza as if they were sent by God as a supplement to the lack of his shepherds in his flock. They act freely yet according to their own laws. They were happy and their lives possessed order and they never did anything to offend God or their leaders. The entrance of this man in their town was not a momentous event. He entered wearing simple garments. He was neither a dandy nor a lackey from a hacienda. He was simple and anonymous. He never possessed the means to receive acclaim or blame yet his presence created ambivalence among the people.
            He walked further towards the barrio looking at the produce of the townspeople. Smiling and looking at them with interest, he said with an interesting grin.
-You seem to be very merry even at the end of a torrent indeed rare for people who seldom experience a storm.
Was there something in his speech to offend the folks? The same question has been flying over my mind since I saw the faces of the townsfolk looking at this man with suspicious eyes. Luckily for him, the cabeza saw the new comer.
-Oy, I guess you’re new in this town eh? Well, I’m Senor Manalo the town’s cabeza.
The cabeza wore the distinctive black coat, silken shirt and a straw hat. The regality of his position meant that he possessed something more than the common townsfolk possessed.
-The cabeza is a very hospitable person then eh.
He said with a grin.
-Should it be possible to stay a few days in your town and feed on your abundant produce?
-You can senyor and you can stay at the hut beside my house it has the most perfect view of the sky.
The following lines of the conversation sadly was not audible to Edgar’s ears but as he continued with his account in my presence. The man stayed at the town and seemed to be welcomed by the cabeza and eventually by the whole town itself.
            Silence filled the town as nightfall came. The darkness ate every possible light for me to be able to return home safely. Thus, I decided to stay for the night. I enjoyed the privilege of staying at one of the elder’s house. Here, I started to hear the rustling of dry leaves on dry ground something unusual at night. Making my way out of the dark street with a lamp on my left hand and a huge stick on my right, I made my way into the dark fields and saw a figure dark and solitary walking to and fro seeming not knowing what to do. I don’t want to cross paths with this unknown entity. Images of blood filled my head and the idea of being mugged at this kind of place is beyond all possible ideas perceivable and thinkable. Ha! So there I was foolishly looking at the darkness. The black profiles of plants and trees and anything else cast a vague view on my eyes unused to the dark. How stupid I was that it was the unknown man. The vague light of his lamp was raised on his face and the look of a person experiencing the same confusion as I do was right on my face. Then, he smiled at me. Without any form of speech and other forms of communication, the smile seemed to be a very crucial message to me. Like saying “don’t worry I won’t kill you” was the assurance that I knew was certain at that moment. After all, he was sitting at a stone looking at the dark sky. Indeed, it was starry. On his lap is a large leather portfolio and as much as my naked eye can see he was writing something on those blank sheets of paper. I returned home to find myself tired and ashamed at the false fear I tried to immerse myself into. What foolishness was it to seem that I am to be killed by a bandit. Who would kill a petty seller of wood who earns only 30 pesos per week on selling wood, 10 pesos as a church sexton and an addition of 25 pesos in reading other people’s letters or writing them. I slept without being aware of it.
III.
            The next day came and the town was alerted by the wailing of men. Men wailing, it may sound impossible but at the moment in which a man’s life is at stake he starts to cry at the midst of fate unfolding before his eyes. The cabeza’s daughter died. Her chemise wet with sweat and a patch of blood on the part of her thighs reveal a slow and painful death. Our man woke up in this commotion of small talk and gossiping something townsfolk are used to do as if they were really the news.
            The cabeza was in tears and the expression on his eyes reveal the hopelessness of life pouring down upon his eyes nothing can describe his unimaginable suffering. He loved her so much that he wanted her to be educated and now he finds himself trying to find the proper garments for her funeral. A priest on the other hand was not available. She would have to be buried without a Catholic blessing.
What sort of sickness did she die from?  These were the questions that flew out of the crowd who flocked at the cabeza’s house just to witness the spectacle of an unknown death.
-We have done nothing to displease God for him to do this unto us. But let us try to discern and find the answers for this problem.
The cabeza was systematically in control. His authority does not rest on the council of elders nor from the people. He was the legal counsel of the town and anything that he said was taken for literally and without doubt.
Wailing, those were the only sounds that I can hear. The faint chatter of women in black veils and rosaries filled the silence of the dark and tranquil night. Still, the unknown man was in the fields looking at the stars and writing something unknown to me or the people. I better not disturb him.
The next day news started to spread into the town.
-Wickedness! Oh what wickedness! Evil lurks in this town!
Like wildfire, the people are drawn into gossip and small talk.
-There is a witch before us.
Edgar cannot explain the following events. The people were so drawn into the mysterious death of the cabeza’s daughter that the only solution was to find something sinister within them. Although they have been together for almost every moment of their lives and the faces of each other are so tightly embossed on their minds. They would never distrust other even to the point of death. Yet, it is still a mystery to me and my friend that the people can immediately conclude a sinister entity is within them. The gossiping of townsfolk continued to spread like wildfire over the town. Hut after hut stories started to take place. The tragedy was too much to bear. The death of such a lovely girl was the death of a queen. Her lifeless body lay in the casket. Her closed eyelids and innocent face of death shed an all too much burden to bear. She died without a word, without a small farewell note. Her sweating body, the wet chemise and the patch of blood were signs of a torturous end. What could have happened to summon this event?
Then I find myself again staring at the dark fields. The faint light of the unknown man’s lamp was the only spectre of light available within my sights. I decided to stay. It would be soon important to take whatever news from this town to the city and maybe just maybe we can shed light into a mysterious disease or event sprawling about in this town.
            Again, the stars, suddenly I remembered the unknown man looking at them in the middle of the night. What can he see that I cannot see? How come such a person with little or no distinction was able to stay that late just to look at the fainting and flickering of dots on the celestial plate? They were like peas on a gigantic bilao spread out like little bugs. They were like fireflies yet this man would take hour just to look at them. I decided to abandon any inquiry on this person. Who am I to judge?

IV
            I was awakened by the loud steps and angry shouts of people. My eyes still blurry from sleep and my mind still not prepared for what is to come still cannot explain the commotion of people outside.
Edgar’s account stops here and the following events were laid down to me through the mouth of Edgar himself. It was almost four in the morning the usual waking of farmers but the morning was greeted with loud shouting and the angry voices of men about to prepare themselves from bandits.
-We know who killed the cabeza’s daughter.
The man was very much confident about his words. He held a bolo on his right and a torch on his left. A few crucifixes were on his neck. Different shapes and sizes, the cross of this man showed his total reverence for Christ but it was not for reverence or acclamation rather it was for protection.
-There is a witch in this town and we now know who that person is.
-Who could that be? Edgar answered.
-It’s him.
This stunned him only a few hours ago he was sitting on a stone looking at the stars. Last night was his last hours. Was he praying to the stars looking at the heavens as if God was there to answer his fate? Is there an escape to this fate? Can God take away the cup of his own death and give him the life he is supposed to have? Yet, he was a heretic. A witch, wizard, and magician to their eyes he was. Is there an escape?
            They arrived at the cabeza’s hut. He was writing on a bamboo table and his lamp still burning. He was silent in front of them. Yet maintaining that air of calm he said.
-What is this all about?
-You killed the cabeza’s daughter!
-With what? I never held a weapon all my life more or less kill a girl.
-You were seen last night in the fields staring at the stars if you are not doing something devilish then what is it some form of black magic?
-There is nothing wrong about looking at the skies. Have you not looked at them when you want to know whether it is about to rain or not?
-No! The lord sends rains to make our fields abundant and storms to make us confess our sins.
-He’s right we only trust the Lord and his church no one else. You! You are no part of our church.
-Have I not taken my supper with you? Have I not eaten bread and rice with you? Have I not drunk from the same cups you drink with?
-Don’t listen to him he’s using our minds with that magic!
The man then hurled a huge rock on his body dropping him down on his knees in pain.
-wait!
He shouted in pain as human as he can be. The people charged in the hut grasping his shirt tightly preparing to strangle his neck and snatch away any air that might be left. He was no more human. He is a mass of flesh walking and wailing in pain as the people strangled him and pulled his shirt. Beating him with their clubs and rocks he was brought to the cabeza.
-Here is the man who killed your daughter.
-Take him away from me!
-But.......
As he was about to speak he was beaten in the head silencing whatever he was about to say. Blood and sweat poured from the brows of his head. Wounds appear to be like the stars he so endlessly observed. Flickering showing itself and then hiding itself again yet leaving tainted spots as it leaves. Pulled away from the cabeza’s house, he was dragged to the streets where the people filled with an unquenchable desire for blood beat him with sticks and clubs. No one was there to maintain order midst the chaos. A mere attempt to stop the berserk crowd by blocking them was a meagre attempt to slow the unfolding breaking of the man’s body.
-Vicente! You evil thing!
-Drive him out!
Shouts were to be heard from the streets and the low voices of women and children smirking at the event mocked the person’s last strands of dignity. He was pulled as far to the town proper. They stood at the entrance. Blood filled his white shirt and he was unable to stand. Shaking he was made to stand and face the crowd. His eyes were almost shot his forehead filled with the bluish remnants of a strike in the head.
-Get out! Leave at once never return you wretched thing!
He was kicked by the same persons who welcomed him and distrusted by the cabeza who with hospitality welcomed him to their town. He turned and slowly walked away his feet shaking. His pace was staggered. The people made him wear a placard on his chest written in barbaric Spanish.
El Hereje Terrible


V
            I returned to the unknown man’s house and learned that his name was Vicente. I never knew about his surname and I think it would be necessary enough to stop at that very enigmatic name of which I cannot fathom anything. His house was neatly arranged and nothing was of his own except for a few pages lying on the table unfinished and it stops at the middle of the page. I tried to read the pages but it was written in Latin something I cannot understand even though I have been going to church all the time. There were only lines and circles and a few words written on them yet whether they mean something magnificent or even though they unravel the secrets of the stars and the heavens I cannot understand the words written on them so I decided to retrieve them and tell this event to the friars and confess my sins. I never did anything to stop this rampage instead I kept myself on the side watching as if everything was a moro-moro with an ending were the dead stands up and bows to the crowd clapping madly at the performance. Instead it was a real tragedy someone was banished for real no one bows to the crowd and everything turns into a joyous celebration of their own victory at something. What was that something? I started to write these words when I felt that guilt feeling that I even though an ardent Catholic cannot even understand. They were fuelled by their own faith and maddened by their own fears. I hid Vicente’s manuscript in the pile of wood and prepared my cart for a long journey back to town. It was the time when I heard two shots from the horizon. I tried not to imagine the inevitable but it cannot be flushed away. I should bury him when I pass by the road and see the lifeless body that once marvelled at the heavens and when I reach the town church I shall have a mass said for him. It was the feast of a martyr.
Anonymously translated from the original languages





[1]Ed. The friar made the town’s name anonymous presupposing that the authorities might read it and investigate about it so he made it look like a work of fiction.
[2]Ed. Local records of the friar’s town tell us that Edgar Lorenzo was a former sacristan of the barrio parish who after his almost twelve years into service acquired education from different friars one of which was a writer who taught him how to write. 

On the Convergence of the Faculties: Intellect and Will Dynamism in St. Thomas Aquinas


Introduction
            To talk about an animal is effortless. Look at it and how it behaves and you can easily decipher what it wants and demonstrate how it acts. Sharks react very aggressively at the sight of blood and snakes never eat dead prey. Ever since the dawn of science, man has been reduced to his physiological manifestations. The brain is reduced into an organ which transmits electrical impulses to the body making it move. His acts are reduced into mere behavior and conditioning from external influences. As the 21st century came, man is but a specter of the universe; insignificant and without value a mere conglomeration of physical parts and manipulated by other people for their selfish desires.
            Distant is the memory of the past when man is considered as the prime creature of God when to talk about man is to talk about the regality and the supreme goodness of God. To know and to act are two faculties of man which prompted the ancients and the medieval philosophers to speculate about. Indeed, he can know the truth and he can will what he wants. From Plato to Ockham, they have presented their theories about the intellect and the will. Each has their own appropriation of their past influences and each has presented an original reflection on the relationship of the two. However, among these philosophers none has been more influential than Thomas Aquinas. Being an Aristotelian, Aquinas inherited the Aristotelian method of philosophizing and the past speculations of Aristotle on potency and act and along with it the concept of the intellect. Being a Christian, Aquinas inherited the immense literature of the Christian faith from the Holy Scriptures to the writings of the patristic fathers adding a Christian twist to pagan knowledge.
            Being these two, Aquinas is seen as baptizing Aristotelian philosophy.[1] We can see Aquinas’s efforts to fuse man’s quest for truth and the desire he has for it. The result is a theory of the intellect and the will. In this paper, I shall elaborate on the convergence of the two faculties. Supporting the interpretation that the intellect and the will act simultaneously, I would place my efforts in proving this claim rather than just simply placing it as a logical turn in interpretation. In the first chapter, I would elaborate on the concept of desire and the relationship it plays with the passivity of the sensual faculties (with a brief historical background to ground Aquinas’s sources) and infer to the phenomena of the variegation of the good. The second chapter, moves from the variegation of the good to the elucidation of the convergence itself. Presenting the interpretations of Gilson and Coppleston, I would depart from the intellectualist interpretation and support the interpretations of Philipps, Kenny, and Elders proving that the simultaneity of the intellect and the will is possible due to the reciprocal relationship of the two.    

I.  The Dichotomy: the Intellect and the Will
            i. Desire
            Man desires something. Aristotle summed up all the arguments before him and came with a strong conclusion: “all men want to be happy.” This is tantamount in saying that we all desire something good. Indeed how can man desire something which is detrimental to his own?
            The concept of act and potentiality is crucial in the analysis of desire. Every creature whether sentient or rational desires something, like an animal who stops by the spring to drink water he fulfills his desire to quench his thirst. Humans on the other hand distinguished by the intellect fulfill his desire but is conscious of it.
            Aquinas then proceeds to analyze the desire in Question 80. In the mentioned Question, Aquinas elucidates on a very important taxonomy between the sensory and the intellectual appetites. It is then important to discuss the development of Aquinas’s concept of desire. T.H Irwin in an article entitled “Who discovered the Will” presents a critical historical overview of the concept of the will. He says that scholars would attribute it to three persons: Augustine, Maximus the Confessor and Nemesius and John Damascene.[2] However, he claims that Aquinas developed this concept from a latent Aristotelian idea of boulesis.
            How does this connect with desire? Aristotle would summarize all arguments and provide us with a brilliant conclusion: we all go towards the good. Aquinas along with other Christian writers before him would affirm this conclusion and they would add God as the supreme end of everything. Therefore, we can consider that every one of us go towards the good. Three works of Aquinas is important in this exposition. The Summa and De Veritate are important works to survey the taxonomy of the intellect and the will. In the Summa, Aquinas extensively elucidates the concept of the intellect (q. 79) and the will (q. 82) and in the third article of the same question Aquinas fully elucidates on the intellect and will relationship. However, before that in q. 80 and 81, Aquinas expounds on the appetitive powers.
            Here he distinguishes between the sensitive appetite and the intellectual appetite (the will) in the Sed Contra Aquinas writes:
“The appetitive power is a passive power, which is naturally moved by the thing apprehended: wherefore the apprehended power is a passive power which is not moved.[3]

Aquinas sets the tone of the relationship of the sensitive power with the will. We feel, we sense and we perceive things. It is important to take note that, the sensitive apparatus perceives different things simultaneously. We see as we hear things. All the sensitive apparatus that we have all function together. Aquinas sets it in a general sense thus sensitive appetite for we can hear yet not listen and touch but not feel. The sensitive organs function because it is part of their physiological nature. Can the ear choose not to receive sounds or the skin receive sensation? It is essential now to claim that that the sensual faculties are passive powers. At the moment of perception, the phenomena of the self-giveness of beings constitute an important part of Thomistic theory of knowledge.[4]  
            Thus, this is where the concept of the will begins.  We all desire something however, perception gives us different ideas. Consequently, this brings us to another dilemma: the variegation of good.
ii. Variegation of Good
            An exploration on the relationship between intellect and will is not complete if we not explore this part. In the last paragraphs we have agreed that the sensitive appetite because of its passive nature conceives things in singularity. If we infer from that premise it is logical that we encounter something good in them. In De Veritate, Aquinas explains how creatures attain their goodness by way of participation with the divine Esse.
            “Things are good by way of “participation.[5]
This line will be repeated in articles 1, 3 and 5. Here, we can find Aquinas’s departure from the ancient Neo-platonic doctrine of emanation. The omnibenevolence of God made all things good and all things participate in this divine essence.
               The created is good in participation with the goodness of God. In totality, things around us possess different degrees of perfection (its actuality) and potentiality. Individually, things go around in a circle of generation and corruption (Aquinas here affirms Aristotle’s thesis) yet in participation with the universality of substance and its participation with the divine essence it possess goodness. Thus, in the totality of things (its substance) and the participation with Esse, we can grasp the whole idea of the good (along with the other transcendentals).[6]
            The idea of the good is mostly connected with its metaphysical aspect. If we look at the human being encountering things around him every day, he encounters individual things. If we look at the Thomistic theory of knowledge, everything starts with sense perception and its passivity. However, it is never complete without the phantasm as the beginning of ideogenesis. After all this, it undergoes the process of abstraction after that we get hold of the substance which endures and is unchanging.[7] It is then logical to infer that the singular things we know in the senses and the relationship between the phantasm and the process of abstraction are the two big blocks of Thomistic epistemology which is necessary.
            Thus, in knowing singular things, we encounter a multiplicity of beings. If I conceive of my fountain pen or of my piece of paper and I act with what I know, I know on the first place individual things (i.e. the fountain pen and the piece of paper.) both at the same time.          The process of knowledge is then important if we want to look into the intellect-will relationship and with its reciprocal relation with the process of knowledge because it bridges the gap between what I know and can will with how I know them to be good or how do I find goodness in them. This is essential because in the Summa Contra Gentiles (the third work which is important to study), Aquinas would assert that man acts for the good however, it must be directed to some definite thing.[8] This definite thing is the Good. Thus, all things tend towards the good. This basic concept however has many implications. 1. All of us tend towards the good but, since goodness is a transcendental attribute of being, how can we reconcile the abstract idea of the good with that of individual things that we encounter everyday? 2. In question 85 and 86 of the Summa Theologica, Aquinas highlights the workings of the intellect. The way we understand highlights the interplay between the senses and the internal processes. The variegation of individual things that we perceive might posit that we know a multitude of things however, Aquinas in article 4 of question 85 in the reply to objection 3[9] says.
Parts can be understood in two ways. First in a confused way, as existing in the whole; they are known through the one form of the whole, and so are known together. In another way they are known distinctly; and thus each is known by its species, and hence they are not understood at the same time.[10]

Our understanding of individual things brings us to the phenomena of the variegation of good. Consider a student peering through a list of university courses and decides whether to take engineering, accounting or philosophy, if he looks at the three all are equally good courses. His intellect gives him three individual ideas of courses which he can will. Thus, we can ask is the will ever dependent on the intellect?

II. The Convergence of the Faculties: The Intellect with the Will.
            Considering the exposition we have done above, it is now essential to dwell on the question we have just raised i.e. is the will subject to the intellect? The interpretation of Aquinas’s idea about the intellect and will relationship is important since this is a central problem in psychology[11] i.e. the primacy of the intellect or vice versa. In Aquinas, we can see that the most accepted interpretation of the intellect and will relationship is the intellectualist standpoint. Scholars most notably Etienne Gilson accept this approach in looking at Aquinas’s intellect-will relationship. In the book Elements of Christian Philosophy he writes.
The human form of appetite, which is the will, is offered by the intellect a choice of objects as wide as the whole compass of being itself.[12]

Above we have indicated how the intellect through the variegation of the good would present various things to the will. Gilson’s interpretation holds true to the discourse Aquinas carries in the third article of Question 82 of the Summa Theologica and article 11 of Question 22 of De Veritate. Here in these two works, Aquinas demonstrates the relationship of the two parties with each other. The Responsio of the third article of question 82 demonstrates what we can call a Thomistic confusion; the nobility of the intellect is highlighted twice (1) as it is absolutely in itself and (2) it corresponds to the variegation of the appetitable good.[13] The nobility of the will on the other hand is highlighted once: as the highlighted good.[14] The absolute and relative distinction might prove the intellectualist view however, if we accept the intellect’s nobility putting the will below as a moving force towards the good there we can encounter a vicious circle as Philipps highlights
We are not, however, at the end of our difficulties, for if the intellect must determine the act of the will and the act of the will must determine the judgment of the intellect, we seem to be involved in a vicious circle. [15] 

Raising this particular issue, we find out that the intellect understands truths about goodness and the will aims the good the truth.[16] The interlocking relationship blooms out as the essential point in the analysis of action. When I do something does intellect first present various objects before I can will? How can we look into the relationship of the intellect with the will? Philipps offers a better proposition at looking at this issue.
This all happens instantaneously, so that it is not the will which first determines the intellect, and then the intellect the will nor vice versa. There is no priority of time of one determination to the other but both occur simultaneously.[17]

Thus by indicating the simultaneity of the intellect and the will, we now shed light to the confusion placed above. The intellect has as its end the truth and the will has as its end the good. Both are transcendental properties of being. The position of Aquinas might hold the intellectualist viewpoint as true prima facie. However, we might enter to the infinite regress as Kenny and Philipps have seen.
            The responsio of the fourth article of question 82 proves this point.
These powers include one another in their acts because the intellect understands that the will wills and the will wills the intellect to understand.[18]
The two pronged movement of the will and the intellect proves the convergence of the two faculties.[19] This is a different outlook on the relationship of the intellect and the will than the usual interpretation done by Coppleston (in the History of Philosophy)[20] and Gilson. Departing from this interpretation, we now look at the intellect and the will as two qualities in man. Aquinas in demonstrating the properties of the intellect and the will bifurcates the intellect and the will for demonstration but in reality both penetrate each other.[21] This gives us a more balanced stance in the relationship of the intellect and the will. Moreover, this point out that man is a unity.[22] With the simultaneity of the intellect and the will, man is viewed as a unity and not only as the product of his faculties.

Conclusion
            To act and to know are two different aspects of man. Each relate with each other in harmonious unity. Although two, they act in simultaneity with each other. The intellectualist interpretation posits man as a mere knowing being. Subjecting the will to the intellect, they made man a slave of his desires requiring the intellect to save it from its threshold and to control it like a master overseeing his slaves. However, even the intellect itself is influenced by the will. Man’s desire to know drives his mind to find the most difficult answers he encounters. As I look at the heavens and wonder at the constellations above me, I never fail to see that my mind possess this desire to know it.  
            The simultaneity of the intellect and the will is possible because of the reciprocity that each exhibit on each other. The intellect understands the will and the will can move the intellect to know. Nevertheless, the ends of the two faculties are both transcendental properties of being. However, if one looks at the side of the intellect’s knowing, the intellect gains the upper hand because it is being demonstrated. If one looks at the acts of the will, one might find that the will is the moving force it gains the upper hand because again it is being demonstrated. Here we see Aquinas’s genius in demonstrating two distinct faculties yet both working together. This distinction demonstrates the specific end of each faculty. While the intellect and the will are distinct and their effects are different in reality we see the unity and not really the prescinded one. The interpretation of Gilson and Coppleston tend to overreact on the emphasis Aquinas gives to the intellect in the Summa yet, they fail to see the indwelling of the faculties with each other. Leo Elders was right when he placed the bifurcated workings of the intellect and the will yet he did not fail to see the convergence of the faculties.
            The simultaneity of the intellect and the will is possible due to the reciprocity of the two. If one looks at the beginning of knowledge that is sense perception, one does not fail to see the outward movement of the intellect towards the world. Although, we would not dwell on Aquinas’s idea on intentionality (see Summa Contra Gentiles Book 3), we see that the intellect in order to know must possess this desire to know. Seeing this reciprocity, it now follows that neither the intellect nor the will is absolutely prior to each other. This shows that the intellect and the will both work together. The intellectualist interpretation never saw the convergence that the faculties possess rather they placed the intellect as the absolute priority in the relationship. This absolutism never saw the real relationship between the two. If one speculates about the relationship of the two considering its simultaneity. One sees the dynamic movement of the faculties towards each end. In respect to this end, we see that the intellect and the will have two ends. Yet, they move simultaneously to each end. As the intellect goes to truth and the will to the good, the two possess a joint relationship in order to achieve each other’s end. The intellect needs the desire for its end without this intellectual desire it cannot move to its specific end. The will works with the intellect and this dynamic duo work together which constitutes the unity in the act.    
Although the study is limited to the intellect-will relationship, in the near future, it should be possible to expose Aquinas’s concept of intentionality. This is important for Aquinas’s analysis of the philosophy of human action. Intentionality brings to the fore the manifestations of the intellect and the will into human action. As for now, the intellect and the will go together in unity. As we have demonstrated above, it is important now to look at this indwelling or convergence of the faculties as a sign of Aquinas’s idea of making man a unity. Man is not a machine that can be manipulated by electrical impulses from a machine or a collection of internal processes that respond to stimuli rather, man is a universe within himself. 
                
              
           

                  



[1] Frederick Coppleston, History of Philosophy Volume III, (New York: Doubleday books)
                [2] T H Irwin, “Who discovered the Will?” in Philosophical Perspectives Ethics, p. 453 and 455
                [3] ST. I q.80 art 2
[4]Karl Rahner, Spirit in the World trans. William Dych, SJ (London: Sheed and Ward, 1968) 94
                [5] De Veritate q.21 art 1
                [6] Joseph de Torre, Christian Philosophy (Manila: Sinag Tala Publishers, 1980), p. 117
                [7] St. Q. 85 art 1
[8] Summa Contra Gentiles Book 3 Chapter  2
[9] Objection 3 Further the intellect understands a whole at the same time, such as a man or a house. But, a whole contains many parts. Therefore, the intellect understands many things at the same time.  
[10] ST. Q.85 art IV
[11] Wilhelm WIldebrand, A History of Philosophy volume 1: Greek, Roman, Medieval, (New York: Harper and Brothers publications, 1958) p.329
[12] Etienne Gilson, Elements of Christian Philosophy, (New York: Harper and Row. 1960) p. 251
[13] ST. Q 82 art III responsio: If therefore the intellect and will be considered with regard to themselves, then the intellect is the higher power. And this is clear if we compare their respective objects to one another. For the object of the intellect is more simple and more absolute than the object of the will; since the object of the intellect is the very idea of appetible good; and the appetible good, the idea of which is in the intellect, is the object of the will. Now the more simple and the more abstract a thing is, the nobler and higher it is in itself; and therefore the object of the intellect is higher than the object of the will. Therefore, since the proper nature of a power is in its order to its object, it follows that the intellect in itself and absolutely is higher and nobler than the will.
[14]ST. Q 82 art III resp. But relatively and by comparison with something else, we find that the will is sometimes higher than the intellect, from the fact that the object of the will occurs in something higher than that in which occurs the object of the intellect. Thus, for instance, I might say that hearing is relatively nobler than sight, inasmuch as something in which there is sound is nobler than something in which there is color, though color is nobler and simpler than sound
[15]R.P Philipps, Modern Thomistic Philosophy : An Explanation for Students Volume 1: The Philosophy of Nature, (Westminster: The Newman Press, 1962) p. 288
[16]Anthony Kenny, Aquinas on Mind,( London: Routledge, 1994) p.73
[17] Modern Thomistic Philosophy, p. 288
[18]ST Q 82 art IV
[19]Leo Elders, The Philosophy of Nature of St. Thomas Aquinas Nature, the Universe, Man,(Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1997) p. 328
[20] Here Coppleston writes: “St. Thomas answers that, absolutely speaking, the intellect is the nobler faculty since the intellect through cognition possesses the object, contains it in itself through mental assimilation, whereas the will tends towards the object as external and it is more perfect to posses the perfection of the object in oneself than to tend towards it as existing outside of them….in this way, St. Thomas, while adopting the intellectualist attitude of Aristotle interprets it in a Christian setting. History of Philosophy Volume II, 101-102
[21]Ibid, 328
[22]De Torre,  180