The diagram stands between order and chaos – just like the subject. It is wrong to think that the object did not do anything but to oppose chaos. As long as we define chaos as universal incommensurability, which, instead of describing a mad world, indicates this one and only world in its truth value that is our shared world without exit, chaos is not an exterior somewhere. It is the world without a meta-world, world without final meaning, world without god. World without world, if we can say so: the world as a non-homogeneous universe of explosive heterogeneities and implosive energies. A world incessantly caving in and accelerating out of itself without boundaries. A non-ascetic world, not subject to any sort of last measure, a world of excessive processes which threaten even the most insignificant, inconspicuous and most controlled normative processes. The subject has long since absorbed this world and belongs right in the middle of it without demarcating its center. It is in the midst of chaos and chaos is in its midst. We can therefore say that the subject is a kind of diagrammatic subject regulating the chaosmotic traffic between inside and outside, as well or badly as possible. “The diagram is indeed a chaos”, Deleuze writes in his book on Francis Bacon, “but it is also a germ of order […].” The same holds true for the subject. Accomplishing a bit of consistency production in the ocean of ontological inconsistency, that’s about it. Not for art, not for science, not for philosophical thought. The philosophical diagrammatic moves along the almost invisible threshold of order and disorder, complexity and the reduction of complexity. This is the implicit violence of diagrammatic practice: that it even tries to reductively tame the over-complexity of a confusing texture of reality. Analogous to the reductive or subsumptive violence of the term or terminological thinking that conceptualizes the heterogeneous multiplicity of what exists, defusing it in such a way, simplifying and reducing it to something it is not. There is no beyond of violence. There is only “economy of violence”, Derrida writes, because “here we only wish to foreshadow that within history – but is it meaningful elsewhere? – every philosophy of nonviolence can only choose the lesser violence within an economy of violence.” This is true for art, science, and philosophy. Which is why it is essential that philosophical diagrammatic – instead of disguising its violence – must exhibit it. A diagram exposes itself as violence. This is where its, if we can call it that, enlightening power. It is both in one: reduction and demonstration of complexity. It demonstrates the state of the human subject as a subject of reduced overview. Simultaneously it indicates this subject’s necessity to orient itself in disorientation. And this is precisely what defines diagrammatic as the attempt to generate – in the midst of chaos and the confusion of the world – images of this world, that are more than indices of the impossibility of an ultimate world view.