Quelques minutes plus tard, elle fai­sait son entrée en scène : au sor­tir de sa pen­de­rie, la lumière du jour la fait recu­ler, elle secoue sa robe qui traîne par terre comme un per­ro­quet fai­sant gon­fler ses plumes.

, ,
trad.  Lucie Albertini
, , ,
p. 177

There are people who feel bad in their bodies and do nothing about it, and there are people who feel bad in their bodies and sub­mit their symp­toms to search engines and stop there. Then there are people who can afford to cir­cu­late what hurts bet­ween pro­fes­sio­nals who will offer them com­pe­ting diag­nos­tic bids. This group of people fol­low a set of symp­toms toward a pro­mise, ask for tests, ques­tion ans­wers, tra­vel long dis­tances to visit spe­cia­lists who might be able to reco­gnize what’s wrong.

If symp­toms are cir­cu­la­ted long enough, a set of dis­com­forts might be allo­wed the mer­cy of a name : a disease, a syn­drome, a sen­si­ti­vi­ty, a search term. Sometimes that is cure enough—as if to appel­late is to make okay. Sometimes to give a per­son a word to call their suf­fe­ring is the only treat­ment for it.

In a world where so many people feel so bad, there’s a com­mon unmar­ked and inde­fi­nite state of fee­ling ill that pro­vides, at least, mem­ber­ship in a com­mu­ni­ty of the uns­pe­ci­fied. Discomfort in need of diag­no­sis forms a fee­ling-scape of curious pains and cor­po­real erup­tions, all unta­med by the cate­go­ry disease. The kind of ill­ness that has no name is the kind that is held in sus­pense or held in com­mon or shuf­fled into the adja­cen­cy of psychiatry.

A body in mys­te­rious dis­com­fort exposes itself to medi­cine hoping to meet a voca­bu­la­ry with which to speak of suf­fe­ring in return. If that suf­fe­ring does not meet suf­fi­cient lan­guage, those who endure that suf­fe­ring must come toge­ther to invent it. The sick but undiag­no­sed have deve­lo­ped a lite­ra­ture of unna­med ill­ness, a poe­try of it, too, and a nar­ra­tive of their search for ans­wers. They finesse diets in res­ponse to what medi­cine fails, assay life­style res­tric­tions, and in the mix of refi­ned inges­tion and cor­rec­tive pro­tec­tions and rota­ting pro­fes­sio­nal ins­pec­tions, health or ill health wan­ders from the bounds of medi­cine, resists both disease and cure.

Cancer’s cus­tom, on the other hand, is to rare­ly show up unan­noun­ced. Cancer comes in a wave of experts and expert tech­no­lo­gies. It arrives via sur­veillance and pro­fes­sio­nal decla­ra­tion. Our senses tell us almost nothing about our ill­ness, but the doc­tors ask us to believe that what we can­not see or feel might kill us, and so we do.

They tell me,” said an old man to me in the che­mo­the­ra­py infu­sion room, “I have can­cer, but,” he whis­pe­red, “I have my doubts.”

To be decla­red with cer­tain­ty ill while fee­ling with cer­tain­ty fine is to fall on the hard­ness of lan­guage without being given even an hour of soft uncer­tain­ty in which to stea­dy one­self with preemp­tive wor­ry, aka now you don’t have a solu­tion to a pro­blem, now you have a spe­ci­fic name for a life brea­king in two. Illness that never bothe­red to announce itself to the senses radiates in screen life, as light is sound and is infor­ma­tion encryp­ted, unen­cryp­ted, cir­cu­la­ted, ana­ly­zed, rated, stu­died, and sold. In the ser­vers, our health degrades or improves. Once we were sick in our bodies. Now we are sick in a body of light.

Welcome to the detec­tors with names made of let­ters : MRI, CT, PET. Earmuffs on, gown on, gown remo­ved, arms up, arms down, breathe in, breathe out, blood drawn, dye injec­ted, wand in, wand on, moving or being moved—radiology turns a per­son made of fee­lings and flesh into a patient made of light and sha­dows. There are quiet tech­ni­cians, loud clat­ters, war­med blan­kets, cine­ma­tic beeps.

An image in a cli­nic isn’t : it is ima­ging. We who become patients through the waves and stop­ped waves of sono­grams, of light tricks and expo­sures, of brilliant injec­table dyes, are by the power ves­ted in me by having-a-body’s uni­ver­sal law now to be cal­led the ima­ge­lings. “Come in with a full blad­der,” the tech­ni­cians say on the phone to the ima­ge­lings, wan­ting to look into our inter­es­ting inter­iors. The sono­gram that can find a new life in a person’s womb can also find an embryo­nic death there.

We fall ill, and our ill­ness falls under the hard hand of science, falls onto slides under confi­dent micro­scopes, falls into pret­ty lies, falls into pity and public rela­tions, falls into new pages open on the brow­ser and new books on the shelf. Then there is this body (my body) that has no feel for uncer­tain­ty, a life that breaks open under the alien ter­mi­no­lo­gy of onco­lo­gy, then into the rift of that lan­guage, falls.

I am sick and a woman. I write my own name. I am han­ded at each appoint­ment a prin­tout from the gene­ral data­base that I am told to amend or approve. The data­bases would be emp­ty without us.

Receptionists dis­tri­bute forms, print the bra­ce­lets to be read later by scan­ners held in the hands of other women. The nur­sing assis­tants stand in a door­way from which they never quite emerge. They hold these doors open with their bodies and call out patients’ names. These women are the para­pro­fes­sio­nals in the thre­sholds, wei­ghing the bodies of patients on digi­tal scales, taking mea­su­re­ments of vital signs in the sta­ging area of a clinic’s open cran­nies. Then they lead the patient (me) to an exa­mi­ning room and log into the sys­tem. They enter the num­bers my body gene­rates when offe­red to machines : how hot or cold I am, the rate at which my heart is bea­ting. Then they ask the ques­tion : Rate your pain on a scale of one to ten ? I try to ans­wer, but the cor­rect ans­wer is always anu­me­ri­cal. Sensation is the ene­my of quan­ti­fi­ca­tion. There is no machine, yet, to which a ner­vous sys­tem can sub­mit sen­sa­tion to be trans­for­med into a suf­fi­cient­ly des­crip­tive measurement.

Contemporary medi­cine hyper-responds to the body’s unru­ly event of ill­ness by trans­mu­ting it into data. Patients become infor­ma­tion not mere­ly via the quan­ti­ties of wha­te­ver emerges from or passes through their dis­crete bodies, the bodies and sen­sa­tions of entire popu­la­tions become the math of like­li­hood (of fal­ling ill or staying well, of living or dying, of hea­ling or suf­fe­ring) upon which treat­ment is based. The bodies of all people are sub­ject to these cal­cu­la­tions, but it is women, most often, who do the pre­li­mi­na­ry work of relo­ca­ting the nebu­lous­ness and uncoun­ta­bli­ty of ill­ness into medicine’s tech­no­lo­gi­zed math.

There is no more tra­gic piece of fur­ni­ture than a bed, how it falls so qui­ck­ly from the place we make love to the place we might die in. It is tra­gic, too, for how it falls so qui­ck­ly from the place where we sleep to the place where we think our­selves mad. The bed where anyone makes love is also—and too clear­ly for anyone stuck there because of illness—the grave, as John Donne des­cri­bed it, from which they might never rise.

In ver­ti­cal life, when you are well or most­ly and wal­king around, pre­ten­ding to be, the top of your head is the space that the hea­vens touch. The total area of the top of you is pret­ty small. You are only mode­ra­te­ly airy, then, and your eyes, rather than gazing up, gaze out­ward at the active world, and it is to this you are most­ly reac­ting. And it is most­ly during the night, during dreams, that ima­gi­ning becomes tem­po­ra­ri­ly expan­sive and the cei­ling air spreads over you, or at least this was, in those days, one magic theo­ry I conju­red in bed to explain the rela­tion­ship of pos­ture to thought.

When you are sick and hori­zon­tal, the sky or skyish air of what is above you spreads all over your body, the increa­sed area of airy inter­sec­tion leads to a cri­sis of exces­sive ima­gi­ning. All that hori­zon­ta­li­ty invites a mas­sive pro­jec­ting of cog­ni­tive forms. When you are so often lying down, you are also so often loo­king up.

I think of the medie­val Islamic phi­lo­so­pher Avicenna’s floa­ting man, who, denied all sen­sa­tion, still knows, as proof of the soul, that he exists.1 I am not sure I believe him. A bet­ter ans­wer is found in the Roman poet Lucretius’s argu­ment in his epic poem, De rerum natu­ra, that we can die inch by inch. Every cell is a king­dom of both sub­stance and spi­rit, and any king­dom can be over­thrown. Our life force, like our flesh, never seems to issue away from us all at once. Anyone who has been half dead can attest to this. What we call our soul can die in small quan­ti­ties, just as our bodies can be worn, ampu­ta­ted, and poi­so­ned away, bit by bit.2 The lost parts of our souls are no more repla­ceable than the lost parts of our bodies, life incre­men­tal­ly lif­ting from life, just like that. And there we are, most­ly dead, but still requi­red to go to work.

I come across a head­line : “Attitude Is Everything for Breast Cancer Survivor.” I look for the head­line “Attitude Is Everything for Ebola Patient” or “Attitude Is Everything for Guy with Diabetes” or “Attitude Is Everything for Those with Congenital Syphilis” or “Attitude Is Everything with Lead Poisoning” or “Attitude Is Everything When a Dog Bites Your Hand” or “Attitude Is Everything for Gunshot Victim” or “Attitude Is Everything for a Tween with a Hangover” or “Attitude Is Everything for a Coyote Struck by a Ford F150” or “Attitude Is Everything for Gravity” or “Attitude Is Everything for the Water Cycle” or “Attitude Is Everything for Survivor of Varicose Veins” or “Attitude Is Everything for Dying Coral Reef.”

I wan­ted to write about exhaus­tion the way I used to write about love. Like love, exhaus­tion both requires lan­guage and baffles it, and like love, it is not as if exhaus­tion will kill you, no mat­ter how many times you might declare that you are dying of it.

Exhaustion is not like death, either, which has a plot and a rea­der­ship. Exhaustion is boring, requires no genius, is demo­cra­tic in prac­tice, lacks fans. In this, it’s like expe­ri­men­tal literature.

I was once not exhaus­ted, and then I was. I got sick, and then the late effects of treat­ment made me exhaus­ted. I was taken to the moment of deple­tion and then taken past that, and after my reco­ve­ry kept there in the pro­ba­bly fore­ver of never-all-bet­ter, sin­king fur­ther and fur­ther into exhaustion’s ground. What hap­pens if you can no lon­ger self-repair ? To be deple­ted is not to die : it is to bare­ly do some­thing else.

Exhaustion is a culmi­na­tion of his­to­ry pre­sen­ted in one body, then ano­ther, then ano­ther. If exhaus­tion as a sub­ject has become new­ly popu­lar it is because a once-pro­le­ta­rian fee­ling has now become a fee­ling of the pro­le­ta­ria­ni­zed all.

*

The exhaus­ted are always trying, even when they don’t want to, even when they are too exhaus­ted to name trying as trying or to think about it like that. The trying of the exhaus­ted is fuel for the machine that keeps run­ning them over in the first place. Life doesn’t have to be hap­py to be long.

Trying is the method of tra­ve­ling with a body through efforts to find the limit of those efforts’ ends. You just can’t, but have to. Now you will. First a breath, next an achie­ve­ment, then ano­ther com­bi­na­tion of attempts, a fai­lure or a nap or a bad deci­sion, all in an attempt at attemp­ting, eating a high-pro­tein after­noon snack and playing out with one’s exis­tence existing’s limit-end.

The exhaus­ted are plas­tic and adap­table. They bend bet­ter and more to what is neces­sa­ry for their having been worn down. They live as fluid­ly as the water into which a corpse tied with rocks has been plun­ged or into which a ship sank or from which a dol­phin surfaced.

The exhaus­ted have a desire : to no lon­ger be exhaus­ted. The exhaus­ted can have this one desire, to no lon­ger be exhaus­ted, as the pre­re­qui­site for the pos­si­bi­li­ty of again having many desires, to no lon­ger be exhaus­ted so that they can want some­thing other, to want what they real­ly want, which is to no lon­ger be exhaus­ted, so that their bodies can offer the pos­si­bi­li­ty again of love or art or plea­sure, of thin­king without regret­ting, of achie­ve­ment, too, or some­thing beyond fai­led and sor­row­ful trying at the bare­ly.

Our wan­ting is not our wan­ting, exact­ly, when it is expo­sed like this through being too tired to want any­thing. What the exhaus­ted once belie­ved was a desire from inside them sho­wed itself to be a desire from what was out­side, what had been there before them and what was orde­red by wha­te­ver wasn’t them.

But it’s not that abs­tract, ener­gy and lack of it ; and not that abs­tract, being too worn out to want any­thing but to not be worn out any­more ; and not that abs­tract, the hyper­fo­cu­sed fore­ver of not having enough of any life to do with it what one could. The exhaus­ted are exhaus­ted because they sell the hours of their lives to sur­vive their lives, then they use the hours they haven’t sold to get their lives rea­dy for sel­ling, and the hours after that to do the same for the other lives they love.

*

A per­son can be any­thing, she is told, if she puts her mind to it in the eco­no­mic zone of unfet­te­red per­so­nal pos­si­bi­li­ty. It’s the free trade of souls across the open bor­ders of inde­fa­ti­ga­bi­li­ty. It’s a series of hori­zon-wide choices unli­mi­ted by limi­ta­tions except for how all pos­si­bi­li­ties will be cir­cum­scri­bed by the capa­ci­ty to exhaust one­self to dis­co­ver a possibility’s end.

Fate was ship­wre­cked, so in its place, they sent us agen­cy. Free to love, free to work, free to get, free to enter mul­tiple and contrac­tual and sub­con­trac­tual realms in which each ele­ment of a person’s exis­tence is nego­tia­ted to the effect of deter­mi­ning her posi­tion only by how it wears her out.

In this ver­sion of free­dom, the invi­si­bi­li­ty of all fences is the point of eve­ry invi­sible fence. The appa­rent lack of limits among the limits mys­ti­fies both limits and limit­less­ness. There are hori­zons that sink, roads and high­ways that seem to go on for as long as one has the capa­ci­ty to tra­vel them, and then, at the place at which it wears you out, you find a real fence.

Freedom ends exact­ly there, hung up on your own system’s fai­lure, a for­mer dyna­mo that is now an eva­po­ra­ted ani­mal, all free ener­gy having been expen­ded free­ly in a quest toward freedom’s end.

*

The exhaus­ted rise each day, or at least most of them do. That they rise most days is tes­ta­ment to the dis­tance bet­ween how a per­son feels and what they do.

A per­son can and often does rise in a will-optio­nal attempt at get­ting out of bed, and when they can’t rise, it’s almost never from lack of wan­ting to. No mat­ter how much they just can’t, the exhaus­ted, if they are living, conti­nue to. They conti­nue to, like eve­ryone who does until they don’t any­more, but they conti­nue to more mise­ra­bly than those who are not exhaus­ted yet. To live and so to eat, drink water, to find a method—work or love—by which to afford to eat, to pay their bills and pay their taxes, to use the bathroom, to put on clothes, to care for their loved ones, requires that they rise, at least some­times. The exhaus­ted might almost do what they are sup­po­sed to do, but as a conse­quence of their deple­tion, they almost never do what they want. The exhaus­ted don’t die. Or if they do die, it is only once, like eve­ryone else, and from any­thing. An exhaus­ted body almost always pro­vides the wrong infor­ma­tion. The wrong infor­ma­tion is also the right infor­ma­tion : things can’t go on like this, and so they do, and what gets pro­ved is the blur­red edge bet­ween being alive and being dead.

Living takes the shape of the effort to exist. In the long night of this effort to exist’s case file, each hour recedes into a lack of ener­gy to achieve a mea­sure of that hour’s length. Everything is tried—that’s how it gets exhausted—and a per­son trying to take notes on this writes, “I’m exhaus­ted,” because they are too tired to put down their pen.

*

That you will run out of your­self trying to make your­self is the yogic pre­lude to the entre­pre­neu­rial rules of exis­ting. It’s the epoch of yes ; the age of unli­mi­ted can, a mass exis­tence in the soma-pathe­tic fal­la­cy of the body and earth toge­ther regis­te­ring the alar­ming tex­ture of our mutual expiration.

Here’s an asa­na of auto-exploitation :

First, a breath. Then swea­ting. Now swea­ting with brea­thing. Then achie­ve­ment. Then email and swea­ting. Now brea­thing and achie­ving and emai­ling. Now wor­king while brea­thing. Now fai­lure and slee­ping and brea­thing. Now refu­sing to sleep while brea­thing or attemp­ting to refuse to breathe while still swea­ting and fai­ling and achieving.

Exhaustion as a method of exis­ting com­bines all actions until it finds the edges of the shape of existing’s end. Like eve­ry­thing alea­to­ry, as a method it has one out­come : pos­si­bi­li­ty. This pos­si­bi­li­ty is most­ly the pos­si­bi­li­ty that all things will end in exhaustion.

The exhaus­ted find their ener­gy was­ted again. Sleep, which is often the reme­dy for tired­ness, disap­points the exhaus­ted. Sleep is full of the work of dreams, full of the way that sleep begets more sleep, full of the way that more sleep can beget more exhaus­tion, and that more exhaus­tion begets more exhaus­tion for which the reme­dy is almost never just sleep.

The exhaus­ted are the saints of the was­ted life, if a saint is a per­son who is bet­ter than others at suf­fe­ring. What the exhaus­ted suf­fer bet­ter is the way bodies and time are so often at odds with each other in our time of overw­hel­ming and confu­sed chro­ni­ci­ty, when each hour is ampli­fied past cir­ca­dia­nism, qua­dru­pled in the quarter-hour’s agen­da, Pomodoro-ed, hacked, FOMO-ed, and pro­duc­ti­vi­zed. The exhaus­ted are the human evi­dence of each minute misun­ders­tood to be an empire for finance, of each human body misun­ders­tood to be an ins­tru­ment that should play a thou­sand com­pliant songs at once.

*

We can’t mea­sure spi­rit. This because it isn’t real, or at least because it is not mate­rial, but it feels real when we become acu­te­ly aware of our own ari­di­ty. But no mat­ter how poten­tial­ly una­live or indis­tinct an exhaus­ted per­son feels inside of her­self, her body will look like a body, dis­creet, alive and ani­mate, and capable of trying more, of trying har­der, of impro­ving or reme­dying or aspi­ring or producing.

We are never our spi­rits’ contai­ners. No person’s body is mar­ked with a mea­su­ring line. No one knows how bound­less we once were or could be, and by loo­king, no one knows what it used to feel like to exist, and how dif­ferent it feels to exist now, or how we were once full and are now deple­ted. The water is gone because the emp­ty glass tells us so. In order to appear used up, a body has to look like a par­ti­cu­lar life’s packa­ging, pro­vi­ding rough mea­sure of its interior’s resources, then its lack of them.

The exhaus­ted per­son is “used up,” but can’t ever be seen as that, only as what is poten­tial­ly (like eve­ryone else and pro­ba­bly eve­ry­thing else in the ins­tru­men­ta­li­zed world) used. The “used up” most­ly belongs to sub­stances or objects that can be or com­mon­ly are contai­ned, and it is most­ly in rela­tion­ship to their contai­ner that what can be used up becomes legible as use-up-able. Probably a thing that can be “used up” can’t be consi­de­red actual­ly used until it is gone enti­re­ly, and maybe this is because a thing that can be “used up” is often a thing with a use that is reco­gni­za­bly meta­bo­lic, like food or soap or gaso­line. The inter­ior of the com­post bar­rel stays dark.

The exhaus­ted look exhaus­ted because they aren’t trying, even if what they are exhaus­ted from is all that trying. “You look exhaus­ted,” we might say to the exhaus­ted only when we remem­ber them as once vital, noti­cing the alte­ra­tion only through com­pa­ri­son, mea­ning you once loo­ked okay but now you look gaunt, you have circles under your eyes, your face is puf­fy or your fea­tures defor­med, you drag and do not spring, you seem to hold your head above your shoul­ders with the grea­test effort, what you say is not too lucid, you fly off the handle in rage, you cry too easi­ly, your words come out jum­bled, you cry and say “I’m tired” and say “I’m exhaus­ted” and you cry because you are so tired.

An exhaus­ted per­son, trying to look less so, will try, as trying is what she is good at. She will put concea­ler under her eyes, add blush to her cheeks, do all the tricks the maga­zines and web­sites tell her will make her look less exhaus­ted : curl her eye­lashes up so that her eye­lids might droop less, drink cof­fee, take Adderall, exer­cise, rea­lize it is Tuesday, then that it is Friday, then that it is the end of the month, then that it is the begin­ning, then that time has rushed for­ward without her, car­rying with it her to-do list but lea­ving her behind.

De Porphyre à Avicenne, donc, les nuances sont impor­tances, mais on a affaire, quant au thème qui nous inté­resse, à une notion rela­ti­ve­ment homo­gène, trans­mise d’un mou­ve­ment conti­nu, à tra­vers les com­men­taires néo­pla­to­ni­ciens de l’Organon d’Aristote sur­tout. Le dis­cours inté­rieur appa­raît comme étant com­po­sé de concepts, pour l’es­sen­tiel, c’est-à-dire de por­traits intel­lec­tuels et pré­lin­guis­tiques, natu­rel­le­ment for­més dans l’es­prit pour y repré­sen­ter les choses exté­rieures et signi­fiés, le cas échéant, par les paroles orales. Certes, l’i­dée émerge chez Avicenne que les mots, esquis­sés dans l’i­ma­gi­na­tion, four­nissent en pra­tique aux humains une assis­tance indis­pen­sable pour la com­bi­nai­son men­tale des concepts et que les langues par­lées, par consé­quent, consti­tuent pour le rai­son­ne­ment une sorte de béquilles sans les­quelles l’âme incar­née res­te­rait mal­adroite à se mou­voir par­mi les intel­li­gibles. Mais le jeu des mots, même chez Avicenne, n’en est pas moins déri­vé. Il serait dénué de sens et de valeur sans cette acti­vi­té intel­lec­tuelle sous-jacente et non conven­tion­nelle qui est l’ob­jet propre de la logique et qui cor­res­pond au logos endia­the­tos de Porphyre et d’Ammonius ou à l’ora­tio intel­lec­tus de Boèce.
Cette filière néo­pla­to­ni­cienne, conti­nuée à par­tir du IXe siècle par les Arabes, nous sommes main­te­nant en mesure, au terme de cette pre­mière par­tie de notre enquête, de la repla­cer dans le contexte d’une his­toire beau­coup plus longue où peuvent être dis­tin­guées deux grandes tra­di­tions : l’une, pro­pre­ment phi­lo­so­phique, d’o­ri­gine grecque, et l’autre à carac­tère théo­lo­gique et d’al­lé­geance chré­tienne. La pre­mière – à laquelle appar­tient de plein droit la série de textes par­cou­rue dans ce cha­pitre – remonte, en der­nière ins­tance, jus­qu’à Platon et Aristote. Elle asso­cie – ou iden­ti­fie même –, à l’ins­tar de Platon, le dis­cours men­tal à la dia­noia, c’est-à-dire à la pen­sée déli­bé­rante, dont l’a­bou­tis­se­ment nor­mal est la prise de posi­tion, la for­ma­tion de la doxa ; et elle en fait, dans la fou­lée d’Aristote, le lieu pri­vi­lé­gié des opé­ra­tions logiques et, en par­ti­cu­lier, d’une rai­son­ne­ment syl­lo­gis­tique. Le « dis­cours dis­po­sé à l’in­té­rieur » est alors le mou­ve­ment psy­chique séquen­tiel par lequel un agent mora­le­ment et intel­lec­tuel­le­ment res­pon­sable se déter­mine lui-même, d’une manière ration­nelle, quant à ce qu’il lui fait dire ou faire dans une situa­tion don­née. C’est cette notion de déli­bé­ra­tion dis­cur­sive pri­vée, logi­que­ment arti­cu­lée et mora­le­ment res­pon­sable – qu’elle pra­tique ou théo­rique –, qui fut véhi­cu­lée dans les diverses écoles de phi­lo­so­phie grecques à par­tir, vrai­sem­bla­ble­ment, du IIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ sous l’é­ti­quette de logos endia­the­tos. Utilisée d’a­bord à des fins de cla­ri­fi­ca­tion dans le cadre du débat sur la ratio­na­li­té des ani­maux, elle paraît avoir connu un regain de popu­la­ri­té dans la psy­cho­lo­gie cog­ni­tive du IIe siècle de notre ère, du côté d’Alexandrie, en par­ti­cu­lier, et de Smyrne en Asie Mineure. C’est elle encore que l’on retrouve dans les com­men­taires néo­pla­to­ni­ciens de la logique aris­to­té­li­cienne et dans les trai­tés grecs de rhé­to­rique, comme dans les écrits de Némésius d’Émèse, d’Ammonius, de Boèce, de Jean Damascène, d’al-Fârâbi ou d’Avicenne, par l’in­ter­mé­diaire des­quels elle sera trans­mise au Moyen Age latin.
Quant à la seconde tra­di­tion, plus exclu­si­ve­ment théo­lo­gique, elle trouve aus­si sa source dans la notion grecque de logos endia­the­tos, qui com­men­ça dès le Ier siècle après Jésus-Christ – au moins – d’être régu­liè­re­ment employée pour l’in­ter­pré­ta­tion allé­go­rique des récits reli­gieux, ceux notam­ment qui concer­naient Hermès. Mais elle ne prend véri­ta­ble­ment forme que dans la ten­ta­tive du cou­rant johan­nique chré­tien du IIe et du IIIe siècle pour rendre mini­ma­le­ment intel­li­gible l’as­si­mi­la­tion du Logos divin au Christ incar­né. Apparue timi­de­ment chez Justin – pour autant que nous sachions –, la com­pa­rai­son du Verbe imma­nent de Dieu à la parole inté­rieure de l’homme débou­cha chez Augustin, au Ve siècle, sur une psy­cho­lo­gie hau­te­ment arti­cu­lée de l’homme inté­rieur, qui fit une très forte impres­sion sur la pen­sée médié­vale. Le verbe men­tal, ici, ne se carac­té­rise plus essen­tiel­le­ment par la dis­cur­si­vi­té ration­nelle et struc­tu­rée, mais comme une force expres­sive, une inten­tion motrice por­teuse de sens, qui serait elle-même le fruit d’un engen­dre­ment intérieur.
Chacune des deux lignées exploite ain­si l’un ou l’autre aspect de l’i­dée grecque du logos : la ratio­na­li­té dis­cur­sive d’un côté et, de l’autre, l’éner­gie inten­tion­nelle et créa­trice. Elles se recoupent ou se rejoignent ici et là, mais à par­tir du IVe siècle, et jus­qu’au XIIe, elles se trans­met­tront, pour l’es­sen­tiel, de manière indé­pen­dante l’une de l’autre. Il arrive que la notion phi­lo­so­phique réap­pa­raisse chez des théo­lo­giens comme Maxime le Confesseur au VIIe siècle ou Jean Damascène au VIIIe, mais elle n’yest pas alors direc­te­ment uti­li­sée pour la spé­cu­la­tion théo­lo­gique. Quant à l’i­dée augus­ti­nienne du verbe men­tal, elle n’au­ra, pen­dant cette période, aucun impact hors de la chré­tien­té latine, ni chez les néo­pla­to­ni­ciens grecs – qu’ils furent chré­tiens ou non – ni a for­tio­ri chez les auteurs de langue arabe. Ce n’est que dans l’Europe du XIIe et sur­tout du XIIIe et du XIVe siècle que la ren­contre se pro­dui­ra de nou­veau et qu’elle don­ne­ra lieu à des pro­blé­ma­tiques théo­riques ori­gi­nales et fécondes.
L’interprétation, alors, sera gran­de­ment faci­li­tée par ceci que, quelles que fussent leurs diver­gences et leur indé­pen­dance, les deux tra­di­tions avaient en com­mun de poser l’une et l’autre le dis­cours de la pen­sée (ou le verbe men­tal) comme étant préa­lable – en prin­cipe, sinon tou­jours en pra­tique – à l’u­sage des langues de com­mu­ni­ca­tion et signi­fié ou révé­lé de l’ex­té­rieur parles mots oraux aux syl­labes et aux sono­ri­tés variables entre les peuples. Il est pos­sible que les auteurs les plus anciens n’aient pas tou­jours été très au clair quant à la dis­tinc­tion à éta­blir (ou à ne pas éta­blir) entre le dis­cours inté­rieur pro­pre­ment dit et le fait de se par­ler tout bas dans une langue don­née. Mais la grande majo­ri­té des indices dis­po­nibles dans la phi­lo­so­phie grecque à par­tir d’Aristote vont dans le sens d’une dis­so­cia­tion des deux phé­no­mènes, que ce soit, par exemple, chez Philon d’Alexandrie, chez Claude Ptolémée, chez Plotin, chez Ammonius ou chez Boèce. Augustin, quant à lui, est on ne peut plus net à ce sujet. Pour l’une et l’autre approche, fina­le­ment, la repré­sen­ta­tion silen­cieuse des paroles orales relève de l’ima­gi­na­tion et non de l’in­tel­lect : Augustin parle de rou­ler en soi-même les images des sons [De Trinitate, XV, 19], tan­dis que les com­men­ta­teurs d’Aristote, à la suite de Porphyre, évoquent à ce pro­pos une sorte d’i­ma­gi­naire ver­bal : lek­ti­kê phan­ta­sia pour Ammonius ou ima­gi­na­tio pro­fe­ren­di pour Boèce. Le véri­table dis­cours men­tale, lui, dans ce qu’il a de plus pur, appar­te­nait, pour les phi­lo­sophes comme pour les chré­tiens, à l’in­tel­lect pro­pre­ment dit ou à l’âme spi­ri­tuelle. Une réflexion plus atten­tive sur l’in­te­rac­tion des deux ordres, comme celle qu’es­quis­sait Avicenne dans son Isagogê sur le rôleauxi­liaire des paroles ima­gi­nées dans la com­po­si­tion logique, pou­vait bien ouvrir pour la pos­té­ri­té la pers­pec­tive d’une posi­tion encore plus pré­cise de la ques­tion des rap­ports entre la pen­sée et le lan­gage – celle de leur iso­mor­phisme notam­ment –, c’é­tait tou­jours, chez les uns comme chez les autres, sur le fond d’une concep­tion fon­ciè­re­ment non lin­guis­tique du dis­cours inté­rieur. Les caté­go­ries gram­ma­ti­cales, celles du nom et du verbe en par­ti­cu­lier, res­taient asso­ciées depuis Platon aux contin­gences de la com­mu­ni­ca­tion plu­tôt qu’aux struc­tures intimes de la délibération.

La dia­noia, écrit Philon, est un « lieu invi­sible » où sont conser­vées les pen­sées jus­qu’à ce que la voix s’en empare avec ardeur « dans son désir de les faire connaître ». Elle est comme un « métal vierge » sur lequel le lan­gage, aux fins de la com­mu­ni­ca­tion humaine, « imprime le des­sin des verbes et des noms ».