Because inequality exists there is something to be thought. Because the world — the spectrum of institutionalized realities — is a world of unequals (not only of unequal subjects), it is not only a living space but a space of thinking opening up the possibility of holding up one reality against another in order to hand over the subject to the manifold of unequals, in order to expose it to the chaos of irreducible multiplicities which is the subject’s proper living space. Any promise of coherence, any hope of identification and non-ambiguity, of equality and self-equality, of sameness, remains open to the chaos of unequals that grinds up the logic of a lack of contradiction. And yet, no thinking can rely on chaos by making itself into chaos, by articulating itself as chaotic thinking. Thinking that gathers courage to traverse the desert of unequals includes a minimum of orientation in hypothetical, if not axiomatic, consistencies. It is indebted to a minimal consistency that preserves it from being shot through by the incommensurable, thus becoming impossible. Before the incommensurable takes possession of thinking, the thinking subject has inscribed a commensurable resistance into the incommensurable, thus a resistance which, from the side of the incommensurable, itself seems incommensurable. Thinking is not only a confrontation with the incommensurable, the desert of inequality; it is an affront to it insofar as it presents itself as resistant against destruction. Deleuze & Guattari have said the same thing about the chaos which philosophy, art and science (the chaoids) confront by simultaneously withdrawing from it. The double movement of opening and closing in relation to chaos is the movement of a thinking that attributes to the world (to the totality of being) a higher complexity than do obscurantism and scientism. The thinking of inequality reveals itself to be a thinking that asserts minimal inequalities, infinitesimal consistencies over the abyss of the incommensurable. Thinking includes this assertion of resistance that makes of its subject a subject of assertion that withdraws from the power of the incommensurable and the violence of opinions in order to rely on nothing but this minimal consistency which makes of it a thinking, this almost-nothing of identifiability, this nameless quantum of energy. It makes sense to call this almost-nothing equality, an equality that interrupts the incommensurable by inscribing in it a measure that makes it itself identifiable ex negativo. In the negative light of minimal consistencies, the incommensurable gains a forbidden legibility which it will not cease to contradict because the incommensurable is the name of that which must remain illegible and indecipherable in order to be itself the principle of an impossible sameness, equality and identity. Obviously, in order to be thinking at all, thinking must resist these two conformisms that threaten to assimilate it to the space of established philosophemes: 1. The conformism of equality that withdraws from being locked out by ontological inequality or incommensurability instead of confronting it. 2. The conformism of an inequality whose purified shape raises it to the phantasm of difference that is without any connection with reality, without any exchange with the world as it is known to us, without reference within the domain of familiarities of the always shared and communicated contact zone called reality. Both conformisms suppress the complexity of a thinking that keeps itself up to the mark of the irreducible conflict between the knowable and the unknowable, the mensurable and the incommensurable, the equal and the unequal. There is no thinking at all that could bend to the temptation of such simplifications. The rigour of any thinking lies in the refusal of all simplifications that stop it before it begins to rise, for the beginning of thinking will not have been concord or consensus. Simplification, however, works toward the consensual levelling of differences which are the lasting tinder for thinking. Thinking includes the moment that it refuses, on the one hand, the option to become assimilated to a quietist conformism of a conjuring of reality (of the obscurantism of facts), and on the other hand, the adoration of impossibility which is the monumentalization and sacralization of an absolute difference in order to articulate itself along the separating line between the two alternatives as a decisive affirmation of their compossibility. There is no thinking that could be anything other than a thinking of the possible or of the impossible. Any thinking deserving the name derives its tension from the conflict in these constructions while it affirms this conflict as incommensurability proper, as the difference of identity and difference.