This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
united to the intelligent agent; since the intellect by the very act of understanding is made one with the object understood. Thus, as the divine intelligence is the very supreme perfection of God, the divine Word is of necessity perfectly one with the source whence He proceeds, without any kind of diversity.” -Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question XXVII, Article I, p. 149 In the passage above, Thomas Aquinas places unity and diversity at opposite ends of a continuum. Interpreting intellectual understanding as valuable and good in Aquinas’ evaluation, we may assume Aquinas prefers unity over diversity when he writes: “…the more a thing is understood, the more closely is the intellectual conception joined and united to the intelligent agent.” This assumption is strengthened by Aquinas’ assertion that “divine intelligence is the very supreme perfection of God…without any kind of diversity.” As a potential aspect of Aquinas’ God, diversity, or separation, is inferior to unity; God and His intellect are monolithic, He is not spread out and He would not be improved by diffusion. With an eye out for phallogocentric attitude, the excerpt takes on a gynophobic/misogynic or phallocentric/autoerotic connotation. The phallus is Aquinas’ measuring rod and with it he splits dilemmas, and the properties he abstracts from it are solidity and opacity. Aquinas’ “intelligent agent” is united with its conceptual conquest as the object understood is subsumed by the agent; as I established before, this union is good by Aquinas’
reckoning. Rather than benefit from an increased diversity of objects understood, Aquinas’ agent erases variety to create value. God Himself brooks no divisions, is no matrix, is not split for disbursement and multilateral action but is eternally composed, whole. Aquinas’ God is a phallus. If we accept that phallogocentrism is exemplified by instances of discursive, aesthetic, or political privilege of the half of a duality that exhibits the strongest symbolic or virtual relationship with the phallus (presence over absence, life over death, memory over oblivion), we must recognize the wonderfully ironic phallogocentrism saturating the circumstances that compelled this author to essay. Tracking the provenance of this instance of phallogocentrism becomes paranoiac, phallogocentrism consumes Western culture and the history of truth, idea by idea, ideology by ideology, until it comes back to itself and balks at the bitter taste of paradox.