So, there are several things that I want to say about this, and several things I feel I shouldn't say about this, so I'll tackle the first and see if I can get to the second.
First, I'm not sure how I feel about your comparison of information bases to data structures. I'm not sure how I feel about D&G's information organization models, frankly. At a minimum, it feels incomplete; there's no structure representing information that connects cyclically without assuming fractal reproducibility. There's seemingly no equivalent to the graph, unless you want to call it a subset of the tree, but those aren't really equivalent because trees imply hierarchy and graphs don't, or at least they don't in the same way.
Second, Heidegger is one of those philosophers that I can never quite take seriously. He seems to want to say a great deal without ever actually doing so, and his central tenets all seem to want to set up a theoretical divide between existence and execution, which is a fascinating idea but fundamentally unhelpful as a concept. I'm intimately familiar with the idea of the self-out-of-context, but I also know (as in speak from personal gnosis) its limitations. Context is inevitable, and even when steps are taken to consciously control it, it's also influenced by uncontrollable factors. This isn't to say that Heidegger should be discarded in every case, but even when he says something with which I agree, I question the steps he took to got there.
Third, I'm not sure your example of the nomadic pack is necessarily applicable, however illustrative it is. Context again being what it is, the nomadic pack has at least some radicle-style interaction with its environment. A pack suited for desert survival would probably be lost in the tundra, for instance. Also, subdividing the pack assumes that each member of the pack operates at a microcosm, but even in nomadic tribes we see some evidence of specialization that may prevent substructures of the pack from surviving isolated from each other. Arguably, yes, you could construct a cross-section that could survive separate from the whole, but you couldn't necessarily take any arbitrary cross-section and have the experiment work, which is what I think the rhizomal nature implies.
All of which really gets me down to the question you asked, which is how to make all of this useful, and that's where I have to say "I have no idea." I can only really go back to the scientists' questions at this point: * What are you trying to model? * Does the model you've made give you the ability to predict or understand phenomena in that on which your model is based?
Data structures and organs
First, I'm not sure how I feel about your comparison of information bases to data structures. I'm not sure how I feel about D&G's information organization models, frankly. At a minimum, it feels incomplete; there's no structure representing information that connects cyclically without assuming fractal reproducibility. There's seemingly no equivalent to the graph, unless you want to call it a subset of the tree, but those aren't really equivalent because trees imply hierarchy and graphs don't, or at least they don't in the same way.
Second, Heidegger is one of those philosophers that I can never quite take seriously. He seems to want to say a great deal without ever actually doing so, and his central tenets all seem to want to set up a theoretical divide between existence and execution, which is a fascinating idea but fundamentally unhelpful as a concept. I'm intimately familiar with the idea of the self-out-of-context, but I also know (as in speak from personal gnosis) its limitations. Context is inevitable, and even when steps are taken to consciously control it, it's also influenced by uncontrollable factors. This isn't to say that Heidegger should be discarded in every case, but even when he says something with which I agree, I question the steps he took to got there.
Third, I'm not sure your example of the nomadic pack is necessarily applicable, however illustrative it is. Context again being what it is, the nomadic pack has at least some radicle-style interaction with its environment. A pack suited for desert survival would probably be lost in the tundra, for instance. Also, subdividing the pack assumes that each member of the pack operates at a microcosm, but even in nomadic tribes we see some evidence of specialization that may prevent substructures of the pack from surviving isolated from each other. Arguably, yes, you could construct a cross-section that could survive separate from the whole, but you couldn't necessarily take any arbitrary cross-section and have the experiment work, which is what I think the rhizomal nature implies.
All of which really gets me down to the question you asked, which is how to make all of this useful, and that's where I have to say "I have no idea." I can only really go back to the scientists' questions at this point:
* What are you trying to model?
* Does the model you've made give you the ability to predict or understand phenomena in that on which your model is based?