Let's go through the conceptual features that you've used to develop your interpretation of "Another

country".

You've chosen a three-dimensional perspective to underscore the narrative methods from where you
account Baldwin's novel as the instantiation of a shift in the ways of treating the protest literature.
This shift takes form from a naturalistic view to an a-subjective ground in which underlies a way of
decoding the reality of "affects" and the "affections" in terms of multiplicities instead of essences,
or mere typologies.
But as the plane in which all happen is a Novel you look in the text at how abstract machines
underlies the flux of perceptions, meaning and representations, guiding the plot of the text itself,
bringing the novelty of a ground of inquiry into which Baldwin light up the problematic of social
determinism without falling in an over sentimentalism or a rude picture of mere naturalistic
formalism.

If the novel succeeds in their shout against inequality it has to have been because their presentation
of an ineffable but present sense of the virtuals potentials of affections that inhabits the core of their
characters and their situations.

If abstract machines are producers of code in bi-polar fluxes the centre of the analysis it has to be
put in the relations of ambiguity and the connotative instances of the Baldwinean projection of the
problematic, and that is exactly what you've done.

We can look at the machine "Race", with their poles "black" and "white" in the first encounter of
Rufus and Leona. All that we see is his perverse and instrumental concern about Leona's body
before they rest together at the balcony. It's a male-chauvinist proneness to embed an alienated
carnal relation without any concern about the actual subjectivity and possible affections of her, what
is impulsing the affaire. Is through the process of "rape" that he's becoming astonished by a human
recognition of his own but uncoded-able feelings.

What it started being an over decoded assemblage guided by an instrumental use in order to express
his power, becomes a completely de-territorialized body without organs. And we see how he
resounds in himself as being paralyzed abruptly by an event in which he is not any more an identity
or a portrait of their past, but a play of tensions and singularities that are spinning as spirals, melting
everything at once, from which is impossible to say where they come from and neither to say
where they go. This is a threshold instance in the text, we may putatively believe, that this could be
a kind of anagnorisis and that from there in forward we'd expect a "bildungsroman" from which our
lost character successively will rise to incarnate a paradigm of morality, comprehension or
humanism, but we gonna see that this supposing is far of being true.

We may understand this impasse as a sharp announcement of the reality of the virtual multiplicities
that play with the three dimensions of assemblages in which abstract machines operate.

In the first instance the representation.

Second instance meanings.
Third instance cognitions.

Why choose an inverse presentation? it's because we're decoding a text and the genealogical process
is developed in this order.

At first glance, it calls my attention, at the level of the representation, a relevant structure of
dialogue that is repeated in two fundamental moments of the “Meeting” and “Rape” scenes. It's a
mirror narrative, a game of replies that Leona and Rufus play (May be seen as a micro-application
of the Linda Hutcheon's “repetition with critical distance”.)

When they meet each other they say: "What's on your mind?" and they both did the same question
in a trans-verbal understanding that makes assumptions about their subjects and individualities, like
if they were opening a spectre of possibilities, and reflections (In the optical meaning). The verbal
structure it's a duplication. The text gives us the oral expression of both in a successive
representation of mutuality.
In the taxi, they accorded, with a certain ambiguity, that all can change in a minute. And this in
retrospective will be completely true, because if he had not attended to her look many things would
be different and maybe his glance at the river would never make him remembered to that father
with his child drowned on his arms. We as readers already know that this is seven months before of
Rufus's ruin, but we don't know the evocative resonance that this memory will have in the novel; it
is as critical readers that now re-read that we can know that. The strategy from the narrative
production is meticulous and develop herself through a dropping of anticipations that at first read
could be left aside as secondary.

It happens again later, before the “rape” scene, when he asks her "You see anything you want?" just
before the abrupt move of Rufus at the Balcony. In between this four sentences, there is a world
already constituted of the psychological, morals, and socials images that surround them.

The mirror dialogues function as spheres of representation. A kind of Leibnizian monad that only is
what it is by the expression of their surrounded place. We as readers are dropped to the task of
configuring the subjectivity of characters by ordering their intentions pursuant to their situation. But
one and other are distanced by the increment of predicates that we can asserts of the subjects: In the
first replied we scarcely know something about Leona, in the second we already know something
about her and about the investments of libido of which is being preyed by Rufus, but also some of
their own. Here, between this four sentences, we have seen how vertigo fills every part of their
ambivalent desire.

You took the image of "The Fold" in which the body plays the role of illuminating the zone of
expression clear and distinct of every single monad. Every monad has their associated body, but
what we see in here is the over fluency of the obscure. It is an obscure world which fills the void in
which they tremble. They try to over-coded the singularities of the other without reaching their goal,
and it's precisely Rufus who compel himself to typify to the poor white southern-girl. Here's
difficult to track down the image of orchid and wasp until they have their sexual encounter. I
believe that they share their codes in that instance, because, as if he were not inside of him, Rufus is
allowed to be vulnerable.

We going to return to this scene, for the moment the important thing is to note this narrative use of
Representation: They say the same in vital places, they mutually incite themselves by a play of
mirrors and what they're looking is in both cases the continuity of a flux uncoded, but that it's only
hinted as possible, because we cannot assume at the "meeting" scene more than usuals possibilities,
we're lack of elements to do it. But at the second "Mirror Replies" we´re starting to see that an
uncodified line of flight is sparking at their ambience and going through them while is glinting
sporadically but without certain direction. This is what leads us to the second instance: Meaning.

We don't need to go far to take account of the use of ambiguity in the construction of subjectivity on
this characters. Baldwin develops the ambiguity of the most paradoxical place of language: The
tautology. What's the precise meaning of the two sentences elevated at square? "What's on your
mind?" "See anything you want?" The relevant point is another time to understand at the level of
meaning what representation has missed exhausting. The two phrases are questions, but the
directionality of both is different. Since the first appoint to refer at the subject of enunciating the
second seems to appoint to the subject of enunciation. The transference of meanings is only
understood by the factuals consequences of the dialogue. By itself, we have the incommensurable
void of an echo, but this echo is exercising a materializing task in which all the system of affections
make resonance.

The first reference is completely unassignable "What's on your mind?" Where can this proposition
go? We easily can assume that for him this could mean: She's thinking about being with me because
I recently got down of the scenery after an amazing jazz session. - And she could be possibly
thinking "Let see where this goes". But we only know that they are incoming into an assemblage of
desire because their effects, there's no way of grasping a meaning in that niche of possible
references: Or we hit against the wall of silence that the tautology give us either we fall lead astray
in the maze of possibles senses that the echo evoke.

You've shown the ways in which machinic assemblages are interwoven in a flux that diagrams the
rupture of territorialized meanings pointing at the chat that Rufus and his host have in front of
Leona about “Respect and successful”. I seriously consider that this successive unfolding of the
complexity of references surmounts any possibility of being decoded on a binary position. Here is
outcoming a gaze in which affections and perceptions cannot be subsumed in a category, in which
processes that fly away of any determination can be assumed as present and actuals and in which
the naturalization of values is revoked by the complexities of interactions that overpasses any moral
judgement.

D&G sustain that Language has been made for traduction and not communication (Apparatus of
Captures). This lead to see that what's important about meaning is its references to "processes", to
"ways of doing". The standardization of language as the ground to whom one has to go to find
essences is a substantialization that reifies processes of becoming. And that's why the duplication
here's appointing to a break on the sense that only allow us to find a wall of silence or a maze of
echoes. It is because meaning
doesn't let us get inside the core of the event from which what is being, takes his source.

When Deleuze on his Leibniz classes explain the swerve from a substantial ontology to a relationist
one, he’s pointing to the dynamics factors of every event and their interrelationship. There’s not
anymore the possibility of understanding a phenomenon through a logic-deductive approach
because other ways of assuming the components have arisen. Meaning is not anymore reached by a
taxonomic guide on which to put entities in relation with a fixed essence but throughout the
description of their interactions and modalities letting the phenomenon itself develop his
potentialities and, by doing so, unfolds their effects. The meaning has become incorporeal and
substantial nouns have been replaced for verbs. This is because language acts, it is not an object of
pure description. Or more precisely: language translate processes that have not place in the reality
as fixed unities. This shift allows us to understand why meaning is supported on a basis of an
unstoppable movement and why a chain of phrases acts on us and changes us, as in an irreversible
thermodynamical process in which components cannot back to be the same once that the process
has been done.

I have said that I see a threshold instance in the "rape" scene. I believe that that's the place to using
the wasp analogy. When Rufus achieve to overfly above himself to lose their boundaries with Leona
and the event itself; we assist to a break of the limits in which The Abstract Machines has put the
possibilities of their meanings and representations. Here the lines of flight create a field of
resonance in which isn't possible to assign an over-coded and diagramed plane, in the opposite we
see how a smooth plane arise from the event itself. This is a point in which two or more potencies
of a different factor come into relation generating a differential space from which virtuals intensities
avoid the usuals potential paths allowing an event that cannot be subsumed into categories but
whom only can be traced in an asymptotical nearness. Here becoming is more than a description,
and it's presented as an incarnated experience. The faciality tensions that separates the lovers at the
beginning are avoided and they stop of striating themselves. They inhabit the planomenon. But what
is it that? All that we know about them is quickly avoided (En español yo diría "nihilizado") by an
instance in which the intensities of their emotions cut them apart of their subjectivity, there's not
anymore a Rufus or a Leona, there's only a flux of intensities in an assemblage rigorous but
obscure. We cannot assign a path as the most relevant because the event itself is what is relevant
and by doing a balance of the worth of their components we cannot do more than misinterpreting it.
This is because here affectio and affectus are mixed and we're assisting at an episode of quiet
creation in which what is, only is. Has Rufus then a social life, it is she embedded with their past?
In my lecture, they reach in this scene the ineffable instance of not being more than bodies in
resonance. That's the reason why they begin a relationship after. Both have felt an indecipherable
level of intensities in which they have had a communion that will bound a terrific fate to them.

What it's important to know is that an a-subjective field is a problematic domain. The three steps
that we've been following appoint to a rupture on the reality that lets us grasp invisible tendencies
that are tensioning the fibres of the event from all directions. If we assume a possibility in spite of
the others we're choosing a fold full of attractors that lend the sensible image of the curve of vector
fields, but the other forces can being absorbed by other attractors to instance other figures
simultaneously. If this is what happened with the physical domain is not different in the strata of
representation and meaning. What we know about reality are their processes, but when we assume
the beliefs, and passions of human beings we tend to reify some processes giving an independent
entity to knowledge assertions. In "Empirisme et Subjectivité" Deleuze asserts that Hume has
thought on understanding as a socialized passion. This is so enriching that it's the work of our time
to look for the implication of this statement.

The investments of libido are not closed into an Oedipal triangle and are not only familiar, but they
are also produced by a social and political tension. The surrounded ambient in which we grow up
cut us transversally giving us a production of sense that only is understandable by the tendencies of
a conglomerate of beliefs, values and practices in which we usually move. In a way or other a
suicidal is someone who had not could escape from a system of representation, someone who hasn't
allowed himself to be re-defined by the openness to other affections. What we see on Rufus, in the
park ride, when he's introducing Leona to Cass and Richard, when he decided to not introduce her
to his family, is that he cannot escape of an internalized prejudice of what he's for the society. Rufus
has never allowed himself to not being a character, for him all his tendencies are over-codified and
that's why he explodes on bursts of hate even against those who love him and believe in him.

We as readers can look at how he is the prey of forces more bigger than him, and how he cannot
analyse and decompose the structures of representations that lead him to reproduce fascist-effects
against others and against himself. But this is unfolded in a way in which we cannot either describe
exactly what has could be their lines of flight. It is the resonance against conglomerates of belief
and practices as a whole that invades and creates their subjectivity, what doesn't allowed him to
recover himself as a sensitive being, it is an image of thinking in which he is trapped. He has not the
possibility of changing his life because he cannot overpass the dominant discourses that are cutting
him into parts and spreading his projection into the void. For sure we cannot blame him, but by
seeing the problematic we can at least redeem him because we understand that in a certain moment
he lost himself as a producer and become only a product of the forces of the state. In a sort of way
he has lost their active forces and has been built by the derivatives forces of the interactions with
other corps. Hence we're allowed to make an scrutiny on how understandings, systems of beliefs
and representations about values are socialized, beginning with their prohibitions and code
scriptures on the body practices.

When you appeal to Sartre's "view" you have shown how an interwoven mesh of meanings submits
Rufus into an alienated being that has lost his objectivity and it's only objectified by others. This
steal of sense, this black hole that absorbs the meaning of his acts when he's walking at the park
reveals how he cannot relate his own discourses about the world, in those moments Rufus doesn't
create the system of meanings from where the reality unfold but falls in tropes of exclusions that
their atmosphere over and over again inoculate in him.

At the large of the novel, we going to see how abstract machines make to intervene bipolarities on
topics as genre, conjugality, successful and of course racism. When Cass goes to buy some hat to
assist at the church and she feels ashamed of talking directly and without prejudices to the black
salesgirl. This salesgirl notices it and after losing a sigh she calls to another salesgirl. We realise in
this instances that certain practices have not been enough socialized to be confronted just like that.
There exists a tension that none of the actors had wanted to pour into the scene. When a discourse
starts to be stabilized in the common language it's because certain practices of the body have
increased their manifestations. We know by performances of that sort that even if Cass is not in any
way a racist person she cannot escape from falling on the usuals stereotypes of white new yorker
women of the fifties. The usuals interactions of the decade don't allow her to believe that their sense
of humanity is widespread between their citizens, and then a simple and trivial act ends of exposing
her fears of being misinterpreted, and by this, she finally acts with ambiguity and certain rudeness.

It is clear that the cultural field that cut us transversely it's really complex and to pretend that Cass
had could deal with the situation in comfortable ways is to forget those infinite mazes of tiny factors
that create a historical and located being.

In order to express the idea, I'm thinking in a kind of “Umwelt” complexified by the symbolical
understanding of human being. Not assuming an ontological difference with other living beings but
assuming that our nervous central system has a further development in application and capacities to
translate within perceptions and dimensions that subsumes different ranges of processes. Is because
of that that it controls the most sub-systems of integrated intensities compared to any other
biological being.

It could have been thought that when we operate with homogeneous spaces what we're really doing
is to filter the range of the entities at which we're applying. Seen only in a meso-space and putting
aside the complexities in the macro and micro perceptional or deduced entities, the difference is in
range but it could also operate by sets.

For example from a social perspective we can be integrating complex dynamics processes, but it is
possible to be highlighting only the moral aspect at the discourse and to ascribing at the entities in
question "what they are", evaluating their existential consequences in terms of pain and joy,
uneasiness and comfort, sensations and sentiments and so on.
In any of these processes we are estimating qualitative and quantitative features, but exists those
who judge that thinking only strives to construct meaning by genres and species as if Galileo had
never existed. With certainty, we can attest that an axiomatic of procedures underlies any of our
approaches to systematize intentensivity but these people could still argue that that's only a horizon
of sense between infinities of them. We cannot say that is untrue, but we can still sustain that there's
no opposition at all between genre-species and the axiomatic-deductive ways of thinking since any
subject that we take to think or modulate will be inter-related with entities that develop wider or
narrower processes showing that we structure perceptions in a differential field. That's why all
makes rhizome. But we can make cuts for not having the cognitive structures required to develop
further the implications of dimensions in which an event occur, and their mutual boundaries could
appear as crystalized when actually they're aspects that only have importance in function of a task
of producing.

Here "producing" is valid for express cognitions, perceptions, movements and for that, as a
subsumer to any experience that men could live. With certainty, it is depending on the task which
inhibitors-cuts could be employ. It's recurrent to see someone who knows about a process but who
denied himself to explicates the how-this-functions-chains of their components. Imagine someone
who knows that tins with food allowed risks of poisoned the consumers if they're dented but who
cannot assert that is because of a process of oxidation. If that happens it's because the individual
can't assume the chemical and physical processes at which that tin can be exposed to into usual
occasions.

He knows that that could happen, but he doesn't know why because he cannot comprehend the how
of the materials integrated into the equation, at least not at a conceptual description, maybe because
he conforms himself with the notion of danger and subsequent potential damage in a pragmatical
use. But here I'm sustaining that it's because he cannot structure cognitions in systems in which
what's worth-knowing is about the complex processes of a paltry if not an infinitesimal portion of
the domain. It could be by knowing that he, at least one time, have known about the defects of the
Roman pipes but it could have been thousands of trillions of ways to arrive at the same effect. The
important thing is that he at least one time has seen act those productive forces identifying the
consequences of the processes embedded by creating analogies of the balance systems of the cells,
the chemical reactions and the breaking on the material in the tin punched.

For this, he has to allow himself to a circuit of dimensions inter-related and the best way of
achieving it is to not make cuts. It's a kind of platonic Synopsis but grounded on operativity. Even if
he doesn't know how to resolve a mathematical proof of it he can still resolve the puzzle. This also
happens in the processes of writing. It could be thought that this ambience is more subtle but is as
machinic as a tin of sardines dented. The task is to not avoid the consequences of our eventual
relationships even if they produce absurd, by doing this we could get at least jokes. To forcing our
understanding to produce without taking care of consequences but look to understand every step,
without doing jumps in the measure of the possible. It looks very much as the rules of the
understanding written by Cartesio, but the ground is differential, the structures dynamics, and we do
not reach ultimate truths but sectors of knowledge.

The important thing to know is that human relations are also so machinic as chemistry is. When I
introduced the axiomatization I was trying to be consequent with our modes of developing
systematic knowledge but I'm not in any way assuming that this methodology can reduce the real
under their propositions in an absolute correspondence, reality escape of our controls in the order of
entities because their infinity and in the order of human relations because of our different
investment of desire. Hence both chemic and human interactions are opened always to wider
inquiries. Articulate the paths of further developments is to can see what the virtuals fields of any
dimension are capable of producing and the only way of doing it is by problematizing what's
already knew. Baldwin has reached this task in her novel and your work has demonstrated with
rigour, order and conceptual clarity this process. There are many mistakes in my chaotic answer but
I hope that you can see my effort to make a good company for your words. I hope you could found
something meaningful in my words, I did in yours and I'm grateful for sharing this conversation.

Message to the Dwarfriend M: You're the best person in the world ^___^