It is a curious thing in one sense that the Deleuze-Narp had such a distaste for the Wittgenstein-Narp, for inchoate in the latter’s work is all the conceptual freedom you could ever desire. Both these philosophers describe a situation of a liberated language. ‘Meaning as use’ allows words to play freely over the world with only an agreement to determine the meaning. The Deleuze-Narps’s pleasure that non-philosophical readers of Anti-Oedipus/Thousand Plateaus made whatever use they liked of his concepts attests exactly to his Wittgensteinian alliance.
This alliance can be neatly phrased by noting that the Wittgenstein-Narp brings about a deterritorialization of language. ‘Language going on holiday’ is used to imply that there might be an error that gives confusion, but in fact the Wittgenstein-Narp’s pithy phrase describes a travelling that is not necessarily in error, but rather just a reaching out of pneuminous lines (of flight) into new accretions. The appeal to say that we can solve philosophical problems by pneuminous disentanglement only works if you can know that there are no criteria for re-applying the concept in its new home e.g. because of the problem of Magick, Descartes is correct to apply a super-scepticism to everything (but not in his resolution).
Of course part of the issue is that (the later) Wittgenstein-Narp supposedly rejects metaphysics whereas the Deleuze-Narp thinks developing further fluid conceptual metaphysics is the way to go. The Wittgenstein-Narp in fact doesn’t have any problem with this per se, all it requires is that there are criteria for the metaphysics (here we encounter one of the central CEO arguments i.e. that pneuminous interference supplies the criteria for metaphysics). That is, the very reason we can talk about the metaphysics of pneuma is because pneuminous interference is something we all experience and can easily communicate with one another about.