There's so much compacted here ... pre-emptive apologies for semi-random responses.
'One' (( )ne?) knot of consistency re-tying some of these threads is the D&Gon discussion of the warmachine Reza refers to, with the immanent problematic of the WM conceived as 'holding open a ( )hole' through continuous vortical behaviour (in the way cyclones perpetuate themselves along with a evacuated inner 'eye') as a singularizing non-unity coinciding with their potential to refuse the model of the State. Thus, despite their (compositional) numerical distinctiveness, they converge upon an indexical zero functioning as the practical principle of interlock and cosmic delocalization.

Reza's last query above also crucial - the way warmachines hunt is entirely different to the way war hunts warmachines. The D&G insistence that warmachines do not have war as an object is interestingly ambivalent here. If their argument is that the warmachine 'aims' at (the perpetuation of) nomos, the ( )hole, is this not in fact the war ('transcendentally' apprehended)?
If 'Western warmachines' hunted their opponents to annihilation, would they not disassemble their own path to autonomization by re-filling the 'inner' ( )hole which liberates them, replacing it with an arrogant and determined peace (New World Order)?

PS. Reza, could you say something 'definitional' about affordance?

All the comments posted above by Tachi and Craig belong to the original version (I had to repost them ... so the dates are fake). However, I emailed Tachi to join the discussion. Will get back to you on affordance and vortical machinery of Warmachines.

Some very pathetic definitions (a fully elaborated and more technical discussion on affordance will be posted later -- the updated version of A Good Meal):

Affordance is an economical network (in the sense of its connectivity and reciprocality) by which openness can be exploited as a groundwork for survival, accommodation, dwelling and the coupled taxis-trellis mechanisms.

The term affordance used here has some inconsistencies to the original term coined by James Jerome Gibson (based on the works of Ingarden, Brentano, et al.) and his eco-cognitive studies. The regulations by which any entity can maintain its dynamic position (according to its mereologic address and its internal mechanisms) and survive in its environing horizon originate from a deeply meshed economic-based network of interactions, connections and methexis, all knitted on mutual affordability. Whole can only survive when entities can afford each other, every type of openness on mereologic levels is demarcated by mutual affordability ‘between’ entities. Affordance does not exclusively belong to only one pole of the economical communication but is distributed between at least two mereologic entities. ‘I am open to you as long as I can afford you’ otherwise ... (a) you must be repulsed (b) attracted by being appropriated (c) partly filtered (d) I should appropriate myself to ‘accommodate’ you. Therefore, the plane of ‘being open to’ is intrinsically constructed on affordance (however it can be strategically sabotaged as discussed in ‘A Good Meal’). Through affordance openness cannot go further (an itinerant line to the Outside); it mainly works as the dynamic capacitator of Whole.

Possibly the most elucidating (yet simplified) ‘model’ of affordance is Aristotle’s Tetrasomia. The rotational movement between elements sustains a refining dynamism for the whole. Each phase of rotation is based on dynamic metrons and affordance (here, economical openness) between elements. Elements are open to each other whether diametrically or diagonally but they can never entirely overlap or radically communicate with each other; they need a mid-state (neo-Deleuzian appropriations take them as in-betweens) to form rotational nexuses. These mid-states are merely valid in a particular location of the whole rotational panorama; although they provide the system with a propulsive polemikos or a spiraling dynamism but they functional locally (as a result of affordability of elements to each other and at the same time, the whole system of Tetrasomia), for example Earth and Water need Menstruum to communicate. The living mud is a communicational entity but also a dynamic boundary which transforms / appropriates the earth and water before opening them to each other, it can only work locally between earth and water and not at any other location. Whole uses these economical communications to consolidate itself and accommodate the Outside instead of communicating with it; the mechanism at work in Tetrasomia is stabilization by means of regional destabilization or ‘deathware’ (utilized anti-despotism) -- dynamic but economical openness between elements manifesting in the mid-states -- which not only gain temporary (rotational) survival for the ever-refreshing set of elements but the spiraling process of Whole.

Thanks Reza
"The living mud" getting oozily Tiamaterialist ...

PS. There's a definite 'W' topic latent in post above too - only Neoroman letter with a name, and name itself nomolexic / ambivalent
W = (AQ) 32 or 2^5, binary redoubling and decimally implicated
P-32 = 131, with manifold WoT/apocalyptic associations

>>> "The living mud" getting oozily Tiamaterialist

It actually is, see Craig's comment above (soggy Earth).

What I forgot to mention but is somehow noticeable in the text is that Nemat-space is closer (in terms of its functionality and the traffic-space it provides) to radical weaponization of flows (clandestine WMs, Anonymous-until-Now entities, smugglers, ungrounding diffusion-escalation synergies, living ( )holes and inexhaustible becomings emerging from p/0) and War-as-a-Machine than Deleuze-Guattarian rhizome.