putting oneself on the line and at risk writing, thinking, &, having spread the tablecloth, standing up on it

Deleuze’s work on literature … has nothing to do with textual criticism or commentary, deconstructive or otherwise, since what matters is only what can be created, experimented or lived through the text, on the assumption that ‘a text is nothing but a cog in a larger extra-textual practice’ (DI [Desert Islands and Other Texts], 260). Understood in this way, art or literature is simply one of several available vehicles for immediate intellectual intuition (i.e. intuition of the sort that Kant and the neo-Kantians sought to foreclose).

– Peter Hallward, Out of this World, p. 129

the difference between creation and chaos. … chaos is the point where innovation becomes so instantaneous that it simply dissolves – chaos names the point where the crucial difference between subtraction and extinction becomes unsustainable. Chaos is not indeterminant but hyper-determinant. Whereas every viable creating establishes a certain consistency or trajectory, chaos is inconsistent.

Chaos is characterised less by the absence of determinations than by the infinite speed with which they take shape and vanish. This is not a movement from one determination to the other but, on the contrary, the impossibility of a connection between them, since one does not appear without the other having already disappeared […]. Chaos undoes every consistency in the infinite. (WP [What is Philosophy], 42)

This is one reason why a creative ontology requires the intervention of appropriately creative thought rather than a merely receptive faculty or passive intuition – it isn’t a matter of reflecting chaos but of inventing forms of consistency that ‘stand up’ to and in chaos. Deleuze and Guattari name science, art and philosophy as the three forms of thought capable of such invention. They are the ‘three Chaoids, realities produced on the planes that cut through chaos in different ways.’ [What is Philosophy, 208tm.]

– Ibid., p. 130