Library Trends

Introduction

Deepening and strengthening fundamental aspects of library and information science (LIS) theories has become a focus of the discipline’s development in the digital age. LIS scholars who undertake this heavy research responsibility attempt to utilize philosophical discourse to unravel mysteries surrounding the information concept and information processes [End Page 34] (Brookes 1980; Buckland 1991, 2012; Budd 2001; Capurro 2000; Day 2019; Herold 2004, 2015; Hjørland 2002; Wilson 1983). From a historical point of view, the library portion of LIS adopts a pragmatic orientation. It has generally paid little attention to philosophy except in library classification theory, which is based on hierarchies of Western philosophy (Olson 2004). The information portion of LIS has followed a different path of interacting with philosophy. Core topics of information science, such as the nature of knowledge and knowing and the way of ascertaining meaning and truth, are also philosophical issues. Philosophical-analytic approaches are employed to study fundamental problems in information science, such as features and laws of the recorded universe (Bates 1999; Bawden and Robinson 2022). The philosophical foundation of information science has evolved from positivism to phenomenology, constructivism, hermeneutics, critical realism, and so on (Hjørland 2005; Talja et al. 2005; Wilson 2003). Martínez-Ávila (2018) argues that among the disciplines historically influencing information science, philosophy is probably the most obvious but unrecognized one.

As the philosophy of information arose in Western countries in the last two decades, with Luciano Floridi (2003, 2011, 2019) as its proponent, it has generated impacts on LIS metatheories (Floridi 2004; Gorichanaz et al. 2020; Van der Veer Martens 2015). Philosophy of information is considered a new and appropriate conceptual framework for LIS by some scholars (Bawden and Robinson 2018; Floridi 2002). Some debates on the core conceptions of LIS have been stimulated by the philosophy of information. Herold edited two special issues of Library Trends in 2004 and 2015 that mainly explored philosophy of information issues. However, the Western LIS world has ignored the Chinese information philosophy, except for a few studies (Wu and Da 2021; Zhou and Brier 2014). Kun Wu is the founder and pioneer of Chinese information philosophy. Wu (2003a, 2019b) claims that Chinese information philosophy is a metaphilosophy that embodies the zeitgeist of the digital age and metatheoretically guides the development of various disciplines. It studies information as a generalized form of existence, way of knowing, value scale, and evolutionary principle. Wu and his followers constructed information ontology and epistemology, information production theory, social information theory, information value, information methodology, and information evolution theory, all of which are subfields of Chinese information philosophy. Introducing Chinese information philosophy to LIS should strongly influence the discipline’s metatheoretical landscape and bridge Chinese and Western LIS to a large degree. This paper investigates the value and implications of Chinese information philosophy for the metatheoretical research in LIS. [End Page 35]

The Origin and Development of Chinese Information Philosophy

In China, the concept of information philosophy was put forward by Chinese scholar Kun Wu in 1982 (J. Wang 2013; Wu, Wang, et al. 2021). “Existence = Matter + Mind” is the principle and foundation of traditional philosophy. Chinese information philosophy, on the one hand, adheres to the basic principles of dialectical materialism, recognizing the material unity and dialectical movement of the universe. On the other hand, it also strives to reveal the unique existence and properties of information that are different from material and, on this basis, claims the dual existence of material and information in the world (Wu 2017). Chinese information philosophy integrates information thinking, system thinking, and complexity thinking with the thinking of dialectical materialism. Therefore, it is possible that it could become the foundation for constructing the second historical form of dialectical materialism (Wu 2013, 2017). Because Chinese information philosophy reconceptualized existence, that is, “Existence = Matter + Information,” it made the first turn of philosophy possible, thus establishing the subject position of information philosophy as metaphilosophy or prime philosophy (K. Wu 2023). This positioning implies that Chinese information philosophy should not be equated with philosophical issues in information science and technology, nor can it be seen as a philosophy that is affiliated with some existing traditional philosophy, because at such levels the truly universal features of information philosophy and its revolutionary role in a philosophical shift will be substantially reduced.

The development of information philosophy in China is basically divided into three stages: first, the origin and exploration period from the late 1970s to the 1980s, during which Wu investigated the fundamental issues of information philosophy, focusing on the essence of information, the classification of information philosophy, the existence of information, information ontology, the cognitive mechanism of information, and information epistemology as represented by Introduction to Philosophical Information Theory (Wu and Li 1987). During the second stage in the 1990s, Wu deepened the research on information ontology and epistemology and at the same time paid more attention to information evolution theory, social information theory, and information value theory. Some classical research includes The Evolution of the Information World (Wu 1994b). The third stage is the period of maturing and prospering since the beginning of the twenty-first century. This period has seen Wu engage in dialogic research with the main schools of Western modern philosophy and Western scholarly research on the philosophy of information. Wu’s monograph Information Philosophy: Theory, Framework, Methodology (2005a) is a landmark and displays the maturity of Chinese information philosophy. Wu and his followers have made efforts to construct the theoretical system of [End Page 36] Chinese information philosophy, demonstrating its continuous evolution and progress (Wu et al. 2011).

As mentioned above, Wu inherits the basic principles of Marxist dialectics (2017; Wu and Li 1987). He insists that the information age does not change the standpoint of dialectics: All things in the universe are a process and system of general interconnection, eternal motion, constant change, and evolution. The information age also does not change the foundation of materialism, that the world is unified in matter. Meanwhile, Wu (2005a) criticizes the dogmatic and mechanistic approach to studying dialectical materialism and points out that Marxist philosophy is self-dialectical, self-revolutionary, and self-critical. In the context of Chinese information philosophy, he makes efforts to restore the rich and vivid thoughts of Marx and Engels. For example, Engels’s dialectics of nature maintains that the most fundamental reason for the universal connection and eternal motion of things is the interaction between universal differences. It is through intermediaries that interactions occur, and things with differences can be interconnected and transformed into each other. However, in Engels’s time, science and philosophy could not provide a universal form of intermediary existence—information. Wu (2017) develops the idea of mediation and puts forward the information intermediary theory.

Another example is that Engels’s dialectical thinking reflects a holo-graphic nature of things. Based on that concept and self-organization theory, Wu constructed the holographic theory.

Wu and his several followers (Wu 2005a, 2017; Wu, Brenner, et al. 2021) have established a comprehensive and integral theoretical framework of information philosophy. They explore information phenomena as a general mode of existence, way of knowing, value scale, and evolutionary principle. From the perspective of metaphilosophy, they construct new theories of information ontology, information epistemology, information production theory, social information theory, information value theory, information methodology, information evolution theory, and so forth. These theories are mutually integrated and unified and also reshape social production theory and noetic methodology in philosophy (Wu and Luo 2018). Within these new theoretical fields, several branches of philosophy and subdisciplines of information philosophy can arise (Wu 2003a).

In 2008, the founder of Western information philosophy, Luciano Floridi, went to Xi’an for an academic meeting with Kun Wu. This meeting of the prime scholars in both Eastern and Western information philosophy not only foreshadowed the inevitable process of Chinese information philosophy going global but also underscored its potential to influence global philosophical discourse (T. Wu 2023). In 2010, under Wu’s efforts, the “International Information Philosophy Research Center” of Xi’an Jiaotong University was established in China with Wu as the director. This was not only the first information philosophy research center in China but also [End Page 37] the world’s first international information philosophy research institution.

At present the ideas of Chinese information philosophy are being disseminated to the world and are acknowledged by the West to some degree. Brenner (2011) reports that Wu’s information philosophy and its formalization as a metaphilosophy constituted a significant contribution to the general theory of information, which had yet to be recognized by people outside of China. He mentions that information metaphilosophy and meta-logic also contributed to naturalizing the information process view as a whole. Zhou and Brier (2014, 2015) appreciate the originality and enlightenment of Wu’s information philosophy and believe that it will become increasingly influential. Wolfgang Hofkirchner at the Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science supported Wu’s information philosophy as a cutting-edge theory in contemporary philosophical development. The International Conference on Philosophy of Information (ICPI), organized by the International Society for the Study of Information (IS4SI), has been successfully held for six years, yielding substantial influence. Chinese information philosophy has been a hot topic at all conferences. Wu (2019a, 2019b) has also served as vice chair of IS4SI for six consecutive terms.

Information Ontology and Epistemology

Information ontology is a new ontological theory on the dual existence and evolution of matter and information. Engels (1963) expressed the fundamental problem of philosophy as the relationship between thinking and existence at a general, abstract level. The true unity of the world lies in its materiality. Chinese information philosophy inherits the tradition of dialectics of nature and attempts to surpass the traditional dualism of mind and body (Wu 2005a; Zhou and Brier 2015). In Wu’s view (K. Wu 2005a, 2023), to clarify the relationship between thinking and existence it is necessary first to address a prerequisite question, which is the scope of the existence domain. This is a higher-level issue of dividing existence. He has elucidated a new way of division, discovering a previously ignored ontological area of existence, namely, objective unreality. Together with subjective reality, these constitute the information world, a basic field of existence different from the material. The new division of existence is as follows: Existence = Matter + Information (Wu et al. 2011; Wu, Brenner, et al. 2021). It is shown in figure 1. Wu posits the philosophical ontology of the dual existence of matter and information based on material unity. This fundamentally changes the claims of fundamental philosophical issues. Therefore, Chinese information philosophy has achieved the first basic shift in philosophy.

Information ontology essentially breaks down the viewpoint that objectivity equals reality as acknowledged by traditional philosophy. Wu (2016) finds that in the interaction of various objective things, the complex [End Page 38] phenomena of self-manifestations, mutual mappings, and mutual representations of things exist, indicating the universal linked feature. Although objective, the content expressed in these phenomena does not have the properties of reality. Therefore, Wu regards such content as another kind of objective existence different from the material and defines such phenomena as objective unreality or objective emptiness. In another way, objective unreality refers to the mutual reflections and mirrors among objective things independent of the subject’s consciousness (Zhou and Brier 2015). A typical example of objective unreality is “the Moon in the Pool.” The moon in the sky is the objective, real moon—a material entity existing independently of human consciousness. The moon in the pool is also objective and exists independently, but it lacks the features of reality because it is only a shadow of the real moon (Wu 2017). The pool that reflects or affords this moon’s shadow is not the actual moon itself; it is real water but does not contain the real moon. The Chinese idiom “fishing for the moon in the pool,” which metaphorically refers to futile efforts, vividly describes the mistaking of the moon’s reflection for the real moon (Wu 2011). Meanwhile, as a subjective reflection of the objective world, the mental world does not have features of reality, meaning that it is subjective unreality or subjective emptiness (K. Wu 2023). An example is “the moon in the mind” (a subjective indirectly existing moon based on perception and thinking). Therefore, we have three existing forms of the same object: the moon in the sky, the moon in the pool, and the moon in the mind, corresponding with objective reality, objective unreality, and subjective unreality (Wu, Brenner, et al. 2021).

Click for larger view
View full resolution

Figure 1.

New division of existence: Existence = Matter + Information (Wu 2005a, 39).

In information ontology, the real and unreal are designated as direct existence and indirect existence, respectively. The content presented by indirect existence pertains to information regarding direct existence (Huo 2014). The moon in the sky (direct existence) is mirrored and reflected and becomes the moon in the pool and in the mind (indirect existence), and a corresponding relationship is established between them. That is to say, the world of direct existence is the material world; the self-display of [End Page 39] the material world, the world of indirect existence, is the world of information (Wu 2006). Wu defines information as follows: Information is a philosophical category that signifies indirect existence. It is the self-display, or redisplay, of the form and state of material existence; it is also subjective creation by knowing and practical subjects, including the cultural world (Wu 2005a; Wu, Wang, and Wu 2021). Chinese information philosophy defines the key features and essence of information from the most general ontological level. This core position of information ontology in information philosophy and these universal and unique features of information in the ontological sense are the foundation for information philosophy to become metaphilosophy and the prime philosophy (Wu, Brenner, et al. 2021).

Information epistemology is a multidimensional, mediated construction theory of human knowing and knowledge. When discussing the process and mechanism of human knowledge, Western philosophy usually adopts an attitude of absolute separation between matter and mind, and such an epistemological standpoint is rooted in the traditional ontological tenets of Western philosophy (Wu 2016). However, the dualistic structure model of matter and mind cannot provide the necessary intermediary for transforming material into mind and vice versa. To solve this problem, Chinese information philosophers have constructed an innovative theory of epistemology named the theory of information mediation of epistemology. This theory regards matter and mind, subject and object, as a unified continuum, during which mutual transformation and generation between them occur through objective information-mediated activities. Human knowing is a complex emergence in multilevel information-mediated construction and virtualization (Wu 2016).

Specifically, Chinese information philosophy classifies information into three basic forms: in-itself information (objective information), for-itself information (intuitively grasped and recognized information), and regenerated information (subjectively created and constructed information). The three basic forms and their affiliated subcategories constitute the three domains of the information world, as shown in figure 2 (Wu and Da 2021; Wu and Luo 2018). What organically unifies these three forms of information is not a mysterious force but, rather, continuous information processing, refinement, and creation by human practice (Kang 2008).

Exploring the Disciplinary Scope of Documentation Based on Information Epistemology

Material versus cognitive viewpoints have been the subject of much debate in documentation. Information philosophy could enlighten this issue. From the perspective of existence division, the document concept has the dual characteristics of objective reality and unreality. Briet defined a document as “evidence in support of a fact” that “could be any physical [End Page 40] or symbolic sign, preserved or recorded, intended to represent, to reconstruct, or to demonstrate a physical or conceptual phenomenon” ([1951, 7] 2006, 9–10; see Buckland 2020). The physical aspect (physical sign) of the document concept corresponds to the objective reality. On the one hand, a document as evidence must exist objectively and directly, showing the feature of materiality. Its form could be an antelope, stars, the moon, printed books, digital objects, or any other things viewed as informative (Buckland 1991). On the other hand, the symbolic sign of a document is consistent with the conception of objective unreality. Symbolic systems such as languages, texts, mathematical statistics, music, and pictures have objective features but are not actuality. This is similar to Popper’s World 3, which is detailed later in this essay. We can infer that materiality and intellect are the two sides of one coin for the document concept. Another implication of objective unreality for documents is that social interactions, collaborations and transactions, communication networks, culture, regulations, and norms among human actors are both objective and virtual, constituting the social reality and addressing Simmel’s question “How is society possible?” Thus, documents function to represent, reconstruct, or demonstrate both objective reality (matter) and unreality (social events), or in Briet’s words, physical or conceptual phenomena. Moreover, in the ontological sense of indirect existence, the functions of documents are the same as the reflecting, abstracting, and codifying self-display, mutual mirroring, and representation mode and state of material (i.e., objective reality/direct existence) (Boisot 1999; Wang and Qiu 2022). Therefore, documents embrace a concept of information that refers to “the pattern of organization of matter and energy,” which Bates (2006) names “Information 1.”

Click for larger view
View full resolution

Figure 2.

Classification of information forms (Wu 2005a, 60).

Information epistemology prompts us to reconsider the disciplinary scope and connotation of documentation. Our brief conclusion is that documentation encompasses all three information forms. First, as mentioned before, documents as a kind of evidence have the features of objective [End Page 41] unreality. This objective, indirect existence of documents refers to in-itself information. Second, for-itself information is also within the scope of documentation. For-itself information includes sensation, perception, and memory storage of information. The perception and memory storage of information is what Bush (1945) envisioned to be automatically realized in his Memex machine. The metaphor “world brain” by the early documentalist H. G. Wells also demonstrated the attempt to simulate the for-itself information processing mechanism at the beginning of the twentieth century. Third, we should attach importance to the regenerated information in documentation. Regenerated information is the result of the human thinking process, creating new information based on the brain’s analytical and synthetic functions. It has two subcategories: conceptual information and symbolic information. Regenerated information plays a critical role in the making of documents. Buckland claims that “an object becomes a ‘document’ when it is treated as a document” (1997, 806). This means that becoming a document is integral to human subjective intention and cognitive judgment. As Meyriat classified documents by intention (i.e., created to be a document) and by attribution (i.e., regarded as a document) (Tricot et al. 2016), making a document involves regenerated information, whether from a creator or a perceiver. In this sense, regenerated information resonates with Bates’s (2006) “Information 2,” information given meaning by living beings.

Information Thinking Updates the Outlook of Information Science

Information thinking theory is a theory about changes in the way people think. Information philosophy scholars believe that the way of thinking has gone through three leaps: from material thinking to energy thinking and then to information thinking (Wu 2002). Material thinking and energy thinking are thinking based on direct existence and reality. They originated from the rational ways of knowing in ancient philosophy and modern science. They are used to explain the origin and nature of the universe and things, as well as their movements and changes. Material thinking views all things as real matter and explores the world’s laws by revealing material properties and structures; energy thinking emphasizes the central role of energy in the world and describes the movement and change of the universe and things as energy conversion and effect (Wu 2003b).

With the advent of modern science, the discovery of elementary particles and radioactivity, and the establishment of string theory, the traditional notion of the separation of material and energy has been dissolved. In such a situation, information thinking has gradually arisen (Wu 2005b). As distinct from material and energy thinking, information thinking is about unreal, indirect existence (Wu 2003b, 2005b, 2016). It views information [End Page 42] as a fundamental existence independent of material and energy. It is a way of understanding and recognizing the nature, mode of existence, meaning, and value of information. Furthermore, information thinking regards the structure, relationships, and processes of existing things (including artificial symbols) as carriers or symbols of information and deciphers the content contained therein to reveal the history, current relationships, and future tendencies of these things, which constitute the indirect existence. All structures and relationships of material and energy are considered as information carriers or encoding. This also involves resymbolizing present objects or information and giving them the specific position of indicators, which is consistent with the indexicality of documents (Day 2014).

Shannon’s (1948) information theory, a metatheory of library and information science, laid the foundation of modern information science. It is a vision of LIS scholars to broaden its disciplinary outlook and understand the influence of information and its vital role in science, social science, and the humanities. Some leading scholars suggest that information science should be a metascience. As early as the 1970s, Otten and Debons (1970) put forward the metascience of information, or informatology, the goal of which is to provide a general basis for all information-oriented specialized sciences and technologies, establish a common framework and language for a variety of information professionals, and integrate different abstract information science theories and bridge plentiful empirical theories. They stated that the metascience of information is basically concerned with two phenomena: the phenomena of information and human-information interaction. Although the scope of metascience called on by Otten and Debons was limited to information sciences, their research represents the first step toward metascience beyond the single discipline. Two decades later, Debons (1990, 1992) updated his view and maintained that the metascience of information aims to reveal universals that “bridge the principles, laws, and theories governing energy, matter, mind, and purpose” (1990, 370) and has the power to serve all disciplines. Brookes’s (1980) outlook on the future of information science positions it as the fundamental discipline for social science. Bates (1999) proposes that information science is a metascience. It has orthogonal relations to the conventional academic disciplines. It cuts across the content or subject matter of these disciplines. As a metascience, information science focuses on selecting, designing, shaping, curating, and accessing the recorded intellectual product of conventional disciplines or activities for certain social purposes.

It should be noted that Chinese information scientists, along with their Western colleagues, make efforts to improve the disciplinary status and significance of information science in the modern scientific and technological world. Chinese information philosophy also holds the view that information science is a metascience. However, Chinese information [End Page 43] philosophy adopts a more radical standpoint. Wu (2016) argues that information science is not just a narrow discipline applicable to a corner of the world but, rather, aims to provide a holographic perspective on the whole world and its various fields from information thinking. Wu believes that information science should provide comprehensive explanations and transformations of the world and its fields from the aspects of information’s nature and norms. Information thinking can equip scholars to grasp and describe the nature and properties of things by apprehending the evolutionary structure and dynamics of things based on their historical origin, current status, and future possibilities in terms of information (Brenner et al. 2013). Following this logic, reexamining traditional disciplines with information thinking will immediately endow these disciplines with a new interpretation. Science in the digital age is facing a comprehensive process of informatization development. This process can be more aptly referred to as the “information scientification of science” (Wu 1997a, 53; our translation). It shows the ambition of Chinese information philosophers’ outlook and goals for information science in the digital age. This is not just wishful thinking.

Restructuring the Relationship Among the Three Worlds: Revising the Foundation of Information Science

The “three worlds” theory is among the earliest philosophies that laid the basis of information science. It is an enlightenment philosophical thought that has greatly influenced information science research. Brookes (1980) first introduced Popper’s “three worlds” into information science and regarded it as the philosophical foundation of information science. Taking the health information and knowledge domain as an example, Bawden (2002) affirms that Popper’s “three worlds” epistemology is applicable, valid, and valuable for information science. Chinese information philosophy research appreciates the value and significance of the “three worlds.” Still, it points out the necessity of reinterpreting and reconfiguring the world model based on the dual existence and evolution of matter and information (Wu, Wang, et al. 2021). Information evolution theory is about the dual evolution of matter and information. The evolution theories in history are basically about the evolution of forms of matter. The ontological assumption of the dual existence of matter and information in Chinese information philosophy has fundamentally changed the view of evolution. The theory of dual existence naturally brings about the theory of dual evolution. This new theory not only innovatively interprets various philosophical domains related to evolution from the dual dimensions of matter and information but also demonstrates the evolutionary synergy of matter and information (Wu 2016).

It is well known that things evolve in interactions, and interactions [End Page 44] realize evolutionary effects on both matter and information simultaneously (Wu and Jin 2010). Material evolutionary effects include, first, the transformation of one thing into another, the creation and movement of intermediaries; and, second, the transformations of relations between things. Informational evolutionary effects include, first, the transition from the direct existence of the object to the indirect existence, which means the own-characteristics of one thing are presented in another; second, the mutual connection of the indirect existence of the interacting objects, which in turn triggers the change of the interactive information architecture; and, third, the overall construction of these newly formed information architectures and information patterns and consequently the presentation of the new information content (K. Wu 2023). The relationship between the evolution of matter and the evolution of information is a holographic and inclusive association that shows mutual synergy, load, reflection, and regulation (Wu 1994a). Not only is there no bare information that is not laden with matter, but also there is no pure matter that is not laden with information (Wu et al. 2019). The transformation between the matter and information worlds is mediated by in-itself information, without which these worlds cannot communicate with each other (Wu, Wang, et al. 2021).

According to the information evolution theory about the dual synergic evolution of matter and information, there is the potential to revise Karl Popper’s theory of the three worlds. Popper divided the universe into three parts, that is, “three worlds.” World 1 is the world of physical things or physical states, including all natural substances and various phenomena; World 2 is the world of consciousness and mental states; World 3 is the world of objective contents of thoughts or the world of objective knowledge (Popper 1972; Wang and Ding 2011). World 3 is about human concepts, abstractions, and creations in the objective world and as a product of the human mind (Zhang 2004). Due to the nonreality attribute of World 3, some scholars even define it as objects that do not embody material and are the products of pure intellectual or mental activities of human beings (Zhou 2007). From this view, Popper’s World 3 is similar to the in-itself information domain (objective indirect existence) in Chinese information philosophy.

Popper (1972) believed that communications between the three worlds must rely on World 2 as the necessary mediator. The worlds follow a linear pattern of interaction. World 1 and World 2 interact, as do Worlds 2 and 3. World 3 cannot have any direct effect on World 1 (Wang 2000). Information evolution theory reshapes the relationship of the three worlds. The interaction between the three worlds is circular. World 3 (in-itself information domain) can directly interact with World 1 (the direct existence) without the bridging of World 2 (regenerated information and for-itself information) to act as an intermediary. In addition, the synchronized [End Page 45] relation of matter (direct existence) and information (indirect existence/unreality) indicates that World 3 coevolves with World 1 and each depends on the other. We admit that the existence of knowledge is objective, but its evolution is not autonomous (Wang 2016).

Jian Wang (2016) argues that the information philosophy of Kun Wu helps improve and perfect the “three worlds.” Considering this argument in information science, we infer that the dual evolution of matter and information implies that information scientists should adopt the interrelated circular logic of the “three worlds” to reflect on the foundation of information science. Borrowing Popper’s thought, Brookes (1980) asserts that the theoretical task of information science is to study the interactions between World 2 and World 3 and summarize the laws and principles of the interactions to better organize knowledge, whereas the practical task is to collect, organize, and utilize the records of World 3. We add that the material world cannot be ignored in information science. Some scholars have advocated research on materiality in documentation and LIS (Frohmann 2004, 2011). Hjørland (2019) asserts that monism (materialism) is the sole fundamental principle of information science and that World 3 or “mentefacts” are subordinate to World 1. Actually, World 3 or mentefacts must be monastically a part of World 1. However, that is not enough. The scope of World 1 for information science should be adjusted. The conception of physical information packages needs to broaden to include not only books, journals, databases, and computer networks but also all things in the objective direct existence realm because these things contain historical, current, and future information without exception. They bear holographic information from the perspective of the coevolution of matter and information. We should elucidate the comprehensive mechanisms of World 1 and World 3 interaction and World 1 and World 2 interaction and build these mechanisms into the philosophical foundation of information science. In Chinese information philosophy, it is equally important for information science to understand the interaction and coevolution mechanisms of objective direct existence (matter) and objective indirect existence (in-itself information), as well as objective direct existence and subject indirect existence (for-itself and regenerated information). It is the task of information science theorists to explore ways of incorporating such mechanisms into disciplinary fundamentals.

Holographic Phenomena and Knowledge Organization

Holographic theory is about the mechanisms, processes, and outputs of the universal connections of things. Holography means that things map and contain multiple and complex information relations and contents in their structure that are beyond their current existence (Wu 2005a). In other words, besides its present existence, a thing also condenses multiple relations of history, current status, and the future. These relations [End Page 46] transcend the present nature of its existence, making the holographic available (K. Wu 2023).

Holography exists because dual existence derives from dual evolutionary effect, in which everything is a unity of matter and information bodies. Such things will inevitably manifest built-in information of different levels and natures in some way during their subsequent evolution, constituting various holographic phenomena (Wu 2016).

Holographic phenomena are classified into five categories. The first is historical relational holography, and the second is future relational holography. The first two categories form the third category of holographic phenomena, serial relationship holography, meaning that anything is intermediate in its phylogeny, which inherits history, presents the current status, and foretells the future. The fourth category is the holography of evolutionary intrinsic relations, in which the part of the system contains information about the whole. Its manifestation is the fifth category of holographic phenomena, evolutionary structural holography: that is to say, some same or similar structural patterns exist among different levels of things. This category is a particular manifestation and does not appear in all situations (K. Wu 2023). Among the five categories of holographic phenomena, evolutionary serial relational and intrinsic relational holography are the two most basic categories. Due to limited space, we mainly focus on elucidation of the evolutionary serial relational category of holographic phenomena for LIS metatheories.

As for the value of serial relational holography, we discuss indexing, the core area of knowledge organization. We think that indexing is essentially an evolutionary serial relational holography manifested in knowledge organization. First, indexing reflects the holographic historical relationships embedded in the indexer and the document. Here we employ Gadamer’s “effective history” to further explain this phenomenon. From the viewpoint of philosophical hermeneutics, we assert that indexing is the process of the fusion of horizons of the indexer as an interpreter and the document under the influence of “effective history.” Horizon is a key concept of philosophical hermeneutics, referring to the viewing area, which encompasses everything that can be seen from a certain standpoint. It constitutes a person’s worldview, pre-understanding, and prejudice (Wang 2012a). We can view the indexer as an interpreter with his or her own horizon. He or she cannot break free from his or her own horizon to interpret the document (Wang 2012b). Horizon or pre-understanding, which is formed historically and condenses historical relations, is necessary for him or her to understand the document’s meaning and determine its subject. Traditionally, the knowledge structure (Brookes 1975, 1980) describes such phenomena in LIS. Horizon is a similar concept with much richer connotations and has a triadic fore-structure of fore-having, fore-sight, and fore-conception (Heidegger 2010). Documents as texts also have their [End Page 47] fixed horizons, which are the past horizons formed by their authors in historically determined situatedness. As Gadamer (2003) has said, both the texts and the interpreter are inherently embedded in historicity, and the historicity of the interpreter is shown as his or her inability to transcend the horizon limited by the historical era and enter the object of interpretation with pure consciousness (Dottori 2012). In our view, the continuous interaction and integration of the indexer’s and the document’s horizons is the “fusion of horizons,” from which understanding and meaning arise. Due to differences in indexers’ horizons, different “fusion of horizons” occur when indexers come into contact with the document. The meanings and subjects of documents generated by the “fusion of horizons” naturally have multiple and actually unlimited possibilities. Even for the same indexer, his or her horizon may differ as time passes. Thus, different subjects of the same document may be produced by him or her at different times. We propose that this is the fundamental reason for the indeterminacy of document subject and intra-/interindexer inconsistency.

We argue that the future relational holography also underlies the assumption of indexing. From the perspective of holographic theory in Chinese information philosophy (Wu and Luo 2018), we treat an indexer not only as a condenser of historical relations and bearer of current relations but also as an initiator of future relations. The future relation orientation features subject determination in indexing. The subjects of a document are its informative or epistemological potentials (Hjørland 1992). As mentioned above, theoretically a document has an unlimited range of possible subjects. In subject analysis, the indexer prioritizes the subject that best meets the needs of the specific user group the knowledge organization system serves. This means that he or she predicts the most important question that a document can answer for a specific user group in the future and prioritizes it (Hjørland 2024). Based on this work, users can obtain valuable and relevant information or knowledge. Therefore, we propose that the subject of documents in indexing has the dual evolutionary nature of historical formation and future orientation, which reflects the dual holo-graphic phenomena of historical relations and future relations. These are the key points of serial relational holography.

Understanding the Nature of Social Evolution from the Viewpoint of Social Information Theory

Social information theory is an innovative theory about the nature and evolution of society. Chinese information philosophy specifies the nature of society and the scale of its evolution based on the level of human information work: To grasp, utilize, and create information by initiative is the nature of human society; the indirection degree (intermediary strength) of these information activities measures the progress of societal evolution (K. Wu 2023). [End Page 48]

Chinese information philosophers claim that different eras of human civilization derived from their levels of information activities (Wu 2016, 2017). The rise of the Internet, AI, virtual reality, and nanotechnology in the information age will inevitably bring about a brand-new level of information processing, creation, and dissemination and at the same time an innovative mode of social production, organization, and development (K. Wu 2023). Wu (2019a) forecasts a future intelligent society, a world where people and intelligent machines are in symbiosis.

Measuring the degree of social evolution through information work highlights the importance of the information science discipline in modern society. Borko defined information science as “the origination, collection, organization, storage, retrieval, interpretation, transmission, transformation, and utilization of information” (1968, 3). Saracevic claims that information science is “the science and practice dealing with the effective collection, storage, retrieval, and use of information” (2009). The tasks that information science research addresses are the same as the human information work in the social information theory. Therefore, from the perspective of Chinese information philosophy, what information science research concerns is closely related to revealing the laws of human societal evolution. The power of theories constructed by information scientists should not be limited to explaining and predicting social information phenomena; more importantly, they should be generalized to become the core idea of any social theory. The depth and breadth of information science theories determine our concomitant understanding of society’s evolution. The more thoroughly we understand how people create, organize, access, and disseminate information, the more intellectual power we have to explain the history and status quo of society’s evolution and predict its future development. The machinery of information science is the engine of social evolution.

Regrettably, there has been little reliable and empirical evidence that LIS theories have explained humanity’s social evolution to date. However, this is not to say that information scientists will not be able to develop such theories in the future. A promising candidate is Brier’s (2008) cybersemiotics. He (2004) adopts a transdisciplinary point of view to integrate biology, ethology, autopoiesis theory, embodied cognition, and the theories of evolution and emergence in order to comprehensively explain the phenomena and concepts of information, signification, meaning, cognition, and communication in the information age, or in McLuhan’s term, “electronic global village” (Danesi 2021; Vidales and Brier 2021). Through uniquely uniting second-order cybernetics, the social system theory of Niklas Luhmann, and the semiotics philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce in a complementary way, Brier (1996, 2004, 2008) establishes the cybersemiotics theory. It is also a metatheory organically combining phenomenology, hermeneutics, and functionalism and holds a pragmatic, [End Page 49] evolutionary, nonreductionistic, and self-organizing position on systems and signification (Brier 2006, 2008). Recently, cybersemiotics has shown a tendency to absorb Eastern philosophical thought, which enforces its distinctive feature of naturalism (Brier 2010, 2017). Now cybersemiotics has matured into an unusually erudite, complete, and cohesive theory of the nature of information studies (Buckland 2012). It aims to illustrate “the relations between the physio-chemical aspects of nature with living systems, mechanical systems and culture” (Brier 2001, 426). Thus, cybersemiotics has the great potential of becoming an LIS theory explaining society’s evolution.

From the above statements on social information theory, we learn that the developmental progress of the information science discipline directly or indirectly influences the framework construction of all social sciences concerning human evolution. Acknowledging information science’s critical role and responsibility in social evolution will make social sciences advance faster and realize the “informatics turn” in these disciplines. Together with the sociological turn of information science (Cronin 2008; Hartel 2019), the “informatics turn” of social sciences constitutes a bilateral exchange between information science and social sciences.

Improving the academic status of information science by utilizing social information theory also indicates that exploiting the potential of classical LIS ideas and theories is promising in the data intelligence age. The “red thread of information” is such a typical LIS thought. Bates points out in her seminal essay that information scientists and practitioners are “always looking for the red thread of information in the social texture of people’s lives” (1999, 1048). This statement emphasizes information phenomena in the social structure. Although the red thread is a rhetorical wording, as a metaphor, it is a powerful conceptual tool to guide, structure, and clarify LIS ideas (Hartel and Savolainen 2016). In LIS, metaphor is an ideal method of simplifying the most complex and elusive concepts and theories. It is widely used (Olson 2013). Hartel (2019) identifies and elaborates nine entities constituting the red thread of information, such as genres, classification systems, scholarly communication, information retrieval, information experience, and so on. We argue that another underlying reason Bates employs the metaphor of the red thread is to give prominence to information structures and information processes in constructing society, or in Chinese information philosophy terms, measuring social evolution. It is the red thread of information that information professionals employ to weave the social fabric. Qualified red thread and superb knitting techniques (advanced information structures, information processing mechanisms, and technologies) can output sophisticated social formations. Documents and documentation are among the most sturdy and ductile “red threads of information.” Buckland (2017) points out that documents and documentation impact human behavior and [End Page 50] shape culture. Culture evolves from hunting and gathering to agriculture, industrial production, and modern services due to the more elaborate division of labor and increased interdependence of people and institutions, whose realization relies on documents and documentation. Documents and documentation have been employed as the main methods and tools for manipulating social relational dynamics. These are the connecting tissue that enables complex society to operate. Buckland’s analysis of documents and documentation is congruent with social information theory, in that he views the document revolution and progressive documentation (for example, wider use of information) as the driving force of social and cultural evolution.

The Pivotal Role of Information Practice in Human Production Practice Based on Information Production Theory

Chinese philosophers of information present a new viewpoint on the nature of human practice and productive activity. According to historical materialism, human productive activity has four primary forms: material goods, spiritual production, humans themselves, and communication relations. The general principles of science tell us that conservation law applies to matter but not to information, so it is impossible to create matter in the material production process. What people usually say about material production is, in fact, the production of material goods, which is a kind of information pattern born in a particular material structure (Wu 2016).

Wu (2017) explains these four forms of production and concludes that the essence of human production activities is information production: copying, changing, and creating the structural information of matter (including transforming the laborer’s purposeful information into the structural information of material goods), ideological information, human genetic information, and communicative relation information/sociocultural information. Since diversified productions are only different forms of information or information creation, social productivity is not material but only information productivity (Wu 1997b).

Wu (2016) proposes that human practice and human production activities are unified, dual activities of matter and information. Practice is not only a process of material movement but also a process of information movement. Before practice, the subject formulates the purposeful and planned information, that is, the product’s image to be made. During practice, this regenerated information is transformed into the command information of the subject’s behavior, which inspires the body’s motor organs to manipulate tools and act on the object through human nerves. Through this process of practice, the structure and form of the object are changed, and the subject’s purposive information is realized in the object, [End Page 51] making it a material product designed to meet the subject’s purpose. In addition, if the practice does not meet the expectation, the mismatch will prompt the subject to collect the information sent by the practice and the transformed object itself. New information commands are generated to revise the original plan. Finally, the process of practice becomes a process of cyclic information movement; in other words, “the subject outputs information—the object information feeds back to the subject—the subject outputs regulatory information” (Wu 2017, 555; our translation).

From the perspective of information activities, human productive and practical activities are the process of transforming the subject’s purposive information into the object’s structural information and realizing it in the object (Wu 2016). This insight inspires us to organically relate information practice theory in LIS with information production theory, which could greatly broaden the research scope and applicability of information practice theory and models and deepen our understanding of the interplay between information practice and material goods production.

Information practice is an umbrella concept in LIS, which appeared as a critical alternative to information behavior (Savolainen 2007). The basis of information behavior is psychological theories, and its research orientation is individualistic; the cognitive viewpoint is the representative theory of information behavior (Pilerot et al. 2017; Savolainen 2008). Compared with information behavior, information practice is primarily based on sociology (the theories of Bourdieu and Giddens), anthropology, and social philosophy (the theories of Schutz, Schatzki, and Wittgenstein). Its metatheory is social constructionism (Savolainen 2007, 2008). The theoretical sources of information practice research include practice theory, social constructivism, activity theory, sense-making theory, social capital theory, and so on (Zhong et al. 2023). Information practice refers to “a set of socially and culturally established ways to identify, seek, use, and share information available from various sources” (Savolainen 2008, 2). This concept definition shows the sociocultural origin of information practice (Yu 2020) and emphasizes the central role of sociocultural factors in shaping information seeking, use, and sharing (McKenzie 2013; Savolainen 2008). In the past two decades, many works have been published on the contexts, classification, activities, impact factors, features, and foundations of information practice (Zhong et al. 2023). The information practices of different information actor groups have been investigated (Lloyd and Olsson 2019). The practice turn in information behavior and LIS in general has been put forward and gets support and advocation in the scholarship (Talja and McKenzie 2007; Yu 2020).

From the point of view of Chinese information philosophy, information practice covers all four forms of human production activities. Since information production practice is the essence of human production activities (Wu, Brenner, et al. 2021), we can enrich the connotations of [End Page 52] information practice in LIS. Information practice not only is the nature of mental production and communicative relations production but also constitutes the substance of material goods production and human generational reproduction.

First, mental production is about producing and replicating ideas and knowledge (Wu 1997b), which is a form of regenerated information (subjective information). Ideas and knowledge production are the motivation and goal of information practice. The process of information practice is creating, identifying, seeking, using, and disseminating information in particular social and cultural contexts (Savolainen 2007, 2008). Mental production is involved in the first step of this process, creating information. When people identify, seek, use, and disseminate information, conception and knowledge copy, the other form of mental production, occurs; information searching as learning is an example. In addition, new ideas and knowledge may also be generated during these information practice activities. Therefore, information practice epitomizes mental production.

Second, information practice represents the substance of communicative relations production. LIS scholars propose that information practice is constituted socially and dialogically, and the origin of such practice is from interactions between members of communities (Tuominen et al. 2005). This indicates that information practice deals with both communicative and relational elements (McKenzie 2002). The emphasis on dialogue and social interaction in information practice pinpoints the characteristics of communicative relations production.

Communicative relations production is about the production of Marxist relations of production, social institutions, social structures, and state forms. Marx and Engels (1995) emphasized that the communicative relations that occur in human production activities are the relations of production. They (1995, 130–31) argued that communicative relations have always signified the social organization that develops directly out of production and interaction and in all ages forms the basis of the state as well as of any other conceptual superstructure. Human communicative relations are not only the premise and foundation of human production activities but also the content and output of production. The constitutive form of this communicative relationship production is the relations of production (Wu 2017). The relations of production must first exist within human production activities. Meanwhile, they are also produced by these activities. Production relations and productivity constitute a paradox (Marx and Engels 1995).

Marx and Engels (1995) utilized a research method of historical evolution and generation to discover that the superstructures of human concepts, ideologies, politics, state systems, and social institutions are all built based on communicative relations. The production of communicative relations implies the production of society, state, and institution. They [End Page 53] believed that “comprehensive production,” including material goods production, mind production, human generational reproduction, and the production of communicative relations, gives birth to the relationships, structures, and systems of civil society, economy, politics, and state (K. Wu 2023; Wu, Brenner, et al. 2021). People constantly sustain and repeat communicative relations in production activities; meanwhile, they also change and innovate these relations. The stability and reform of production relations, national patterns, and civilized institutions and systems are typical examples of repetition and innovation of communication relations production.

Basically, communicative relational activities are information bonding (Wu, Brenner, et al. 2021), whose meaning is equal to that of information practice. The very nature of communicative relations production is replication, change, and innovation of information bonding (practice). The distinctive features of information practice in this production category are routinized and institutionalized (Wu, Brenner, et al. 2021). This echoes the LIS view in the West that the hallmark information practice is recurrent, routinized, habitual, and stable, resulting in social order creation (Bronstein and Solomon 2021). It demonstrates a high degree of consensus among scholars from the East and the West regarding the core idea of information practice. It is also consistent with the standpoint of practice theory that information practice is reproductive of social mores, generative of rules and norms, and contributes to ordering reality (Pilerot et al. 2017). Therefore, the first two categories of production activities, mental production and communicative relations production, can be fully explained and understood by the principles of information practice. Just as Cox (2012) claims, although only a few social practices are information-oriented, information practice permeates all social practices. Based on Chinese information philosophy, we further argue that information practice underpins and molds all social practices conducted under different names.

Third, human generational reproduction is defined as the replication and variation of human genetic information and sociocultural information. The former produces human lives, whereas the latter cultivates individual life into a socialized member of human society through cultural assimilation (Wu and Li 1987). Information practice constitutes the substance of both forms of reproduction at micro- and macrolevels. The replication and variation of human genetic information is a micro-information practice of humans themselves, which has been studied in depth in bioinformatics.

Socialization through cultural assimilation is a macro-information practice. An influential theory explaining this socialization process is the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT), developed by Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky and his students. Vygotsky, a pioneering scholar, introduced [End Page 54] the Marxist principle of the social and historical nature of the human mind into psychology. He (1962, 1980) used this principle to guide research on higher mental functions, considering dialectical materialism as the philosophical basis of modern psychology and practice as the cornerstone. The assertion that the consciousness and mind should be studied from a historical rather than an abstract perspective, within rather than outside a social context, is a key aspect of his work (Du and Gao 2004; Holland and Valsiner 1988). The uniqueness of CHAT lies in its understanding that the mind is rooted in social, historical, cultural, and material processes and is intertwined with them. The material and mental culture constantly developing in the historical process is the origin and determining factor of human psychological development (Gong and Huang 2004; Tzuriel 2021).

CHAT is a mediational psychology. Higher mental functions differ from lower ones because they have an additional intermediary link in the functional mechanism. Just as human practices are mediated by labor tools, human higher mental functions are mediated by various symbol systems (Du and Gao 2004; Gong and Huang 2004). In other words, human psychological processes are realized by using symbols as tools. The psychological tool is a special tool for mind production. This psychological tool or mediation measure is also the product of people’s interactions and social and cultural history development in material production (Daniels et al. 2007). L. Wang (2013) systematically reviews CHAT and discusses its implications for LIS and information practice. He restates the goal of information science from the perspective of CHAT: brokering and transferring sociocultural and historical processes, social activities, and social relationships into the internal mental structure of individuals, leading to higher mental functions enhancement, the realization of which depends on collecting, organizing, and managing information as signs. This restatement highlights the critical intermediary role of information practice in the brokering and transferring process. This process is socioculturally and historically outside-in information practice. It corresponds to Wu’s view that assimilating sociocultural information is the “postnatal intermediary” of human construction. Based on this argument, we could name it “the new intermediary view” of information practice.

Last, as with the information practice nature of the former three production categories, material goods production is also information practice based. Because of the conservation law, humans cannot create material (mass and energy). They can only change the existing form of material, which can only be realized by changing the structural information of the material. So, we use the term material goods production to name this production category (Wu, Wang, and Wu 2021), the essence of which is information production. This viewpoint broadens the scope of information practice. Conventionally, the materiality of information practice is limited [End Page 55] to the material objects or tools involved in information content-oriented activities. Material is an enabler and constraint of information practice. Chinese information philosophy argues that the meaningful boundary of materiality that information practice embraces should be expanded to all material (mass and energy) because all material goods production is information production. Materiality not only means a scaffold or feature of information practice but also becomes a prime focus point (or research subject) that information practice anchors and defines in many senses. Information practice is ingrained in all material goods production. Where material production was, there information practice shall be.

In short, information production theory highlights the extreme importance of information practice in human actions and productive forces. Supported by information production theory, information practice encompasses the entire range of human production forms and is absolutely core to any production activities. The conception of information practice becomes more inclusive and scalable. Buckland says, “We conclude that we are unable to say confidently of anything that it could not be information” (1991, 356). Like Buckland, we come to the conclusion that we are unable to say of any human production that it could not be information practice.

Conclusion

Since Kun Wu put forward Chinese information philosophy in the 1980s, the information environment has changed greatly. The human print-based society has transformed into a data intelligence society. This era transformation proves the value and foresight of Chinese information philosophy and also facilitates its prospects. Chinese information philosophy is a unique scholarly school in the international information philosophy community. As a metaphilosophy, Wu’s Chinese information philosophy attempts to realize a fundamental transformation in philosophy. The metatheory and core ideas of LIS will inevitably be influenced and updated by information philosophy, including Chinese information philosophy. This paper investigates the value and implications of Chinese information philosophy for the metatheoretical research of LIS, mainly in the following respects:

• • Redefining information and document concepts based on information ontology

• • Broadening the disciplinary scope of documentation based on information epistemology

• • Metascience positioning of information science and a new disciplinary outlook in light of information thinking theory

• • Revising the foundation of information science through introducing the information evolution theory to reshape the evolutionary logic and relations of Popper’s three worlds [End Page 56]

• • Holographic theory and a new interpretation of the nature of knowledge organization

• • The interaction between the social information theory and social epistemology

• • The pivotal role of information practice in human production practice based on information production theory

Although Chinese information philosophy research has achieved encouraging and promising results, there is abundant room for further progress in disseminating this thought globally. Wu and his Chinese information philosophy have yet to be widely accepted or cited in the West. The main reason is that most of his works are published in Chinese, and few are available in English. Before 2010, Wu had only published five papers in English, and none could be found on Google Scholar. Because of this language barrier, the Western research community has had little chance to learn about this original thought. Just as Brenner (2011) says, a complete evaluation of Wu’s works on information philosophy and their great value can only be made once they are all translated into English. Hofkirchner (2016) asserts that Wu’s information philosophy belongs not only to China but also to the world. More translations are needed to comprehensively introduce Chinese information philosophy to the West and inspire meaningful global dialogues. We believe that this introductory work will significantly influence and change LIS metatheory and bridge the gap between Eastern and Western LIS worlds.