No One Is in Command

This research note examines Proposition 25 of ideamorphism, Universal Diffraction, which holds that diffraction is not a technique, not a choice, and not something one does. Starting from a dated case — a couple before an abstract canvas whose chromatic codex had just been disclosed and played at the piano, one seeing a smiling face in it, the other "just shapes" — it sets the proposition against Gombrich, Polanyi and Wittgenstein on one side, and Ingarden, Iser, Goodman, Carroll and Dewey on the other. Three distinctions lift the opposition: the will solicits an aspect without commanding it; concretisation is an intending, not a decided action; what has been learned runs at the moment of reception without being deployed. What arrives can therefore have causes, depend on an activity, have been learned and let itself be changed afterwards, without having been done. The proposition's universality lies not in a shared content but in the absence of a zero case: no reception is without an interval from the emission. The note confines the emitter's sovereignty to the institution of the rule, maintains his responsibility for the conditions, and declares the departure of the ideamorphic usage from diffraction as a critical practice in Haraway. Verdict: Anticipated.