Thus, as we become diagrammatic, we embrace a theoretical architecture in which discursive "middleness" is achieved: “Middleness, to borrow a musical idea, functions as the ‘fundamental’ (or even leitmotif) throughout the present text, of which all the other themes are its ‘partials.’ Middleness is our way of affirming (valorizing) the fullness and positivity of all social or design phenomena. We oppose it to the negativity of dialectics and all theories of alterity. Nor should it be confused with the toujours déjà of Derrideanism. These latter principles, we claim, are little more than false escapes from metaphysics that deny the material consistency of events, in favor of so-called meaning structures that putatively exist beyond them.”²⁴ The diagram allows the individual to merge with the substance of expression, to become as fictional as those regimes that putatively exist beyond it. The individual merges within the visual field of linguistic observation, becoming allosomorphic, infinitely variable, alphabetical, and fearless, in surmounting conceits of authenticity; while existing beyond the pursuit of "wisdom" by "intellectual means and moral self-discipline," grounding is subverted as a means (and ends) of gaining intellectual momentum and inertia. Moreover, becoming diagrammatic allows one to exceed the preconditions of a "material consistency" predicated upon the nominal archive, typological entrenchment, and other archaic modes of negative affirmation. In affirming that which is not known, the diagrammatic allows one to experience ignorance as an essential ingredient to a variable, linear flow of existence. The diagram forms a re-centered sight of subjectivity, achieving "middleness" where supposedly legitimate modes of academic, historic, scientific, and clinical perception become partial to that of the individual. 

The diagrammatic does have its doubles; an alterity of articulation attempts to reduce the material consistency of ignorance to a "diagrammatic" precognition of the verifiable, to “diagram” matter as if it has yet to qualify, and thereby emerge, into "true" existence. Such positions would not have us believe in a theoretical architecture in which "both thought and action, competence and performance, are constituted as diagrammatical acts." ²⁵ Yet these double articulations of the diagram, which are constitutive of strata, form distinct modes of content and expression. As such, the reciprocal forms and substances of negative affirmation are at times politically discreet and allusive, each possessing its own form and substance. 

As expressed, however, regimes of negative affirmation contain the diagrammatic forces of "universal interest" and "achievement" of an assumed highbrow society. However agile the magnitudes of intent, we summarily find these linguistic postulates of hypersubjectivity, typological entrenchment, and historical authenticity inconclusive; we find these affective forces, aleatoric tropes, and picturesque modes of exile incomplete; we also find these automated technologies of discipline inadequate in affirming the diagram as a point reference to "true" knowledge. For ignorance forms a plane of pending exploration, diminishing the character/structure of knowledge for ignorance as the true site of subjectivity. 

Kevin L. Fuller