Addressing Hyperconnected Society’s Challenges Through Laozi–Zhuangzi Thought

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this paper, which attempts to interpret the nature and characteristics of a hyperconnected society in terms of Daoism, is very novel and creative. However, I hope that it will help improve the overall structure and quality of the paper by suggesting some improvements as follows: first, although necessary for interpretive argumentation, explanations and analysis through specific cases and examples should be added rather than repeating declarative and conclusive statements. Second, the way the numbers are listed on pages 10 and 11 needs to be replaced by more concise sentences. In addition, the conclusion part of the paper is so long and lengthy as to reduce its readability. Therefore, it should be organized more summarized and concisely. Third, the minimum necessary references are often omitted from various places in the text. Supplementation is needed. Finally, in the paper, several terms like 'connectivity', 'hyper-connectivity', 'connection', and 'interconnectedness' are mixed depending on the context to explain the characteristics of a hyperconnected society. Conceptual clarity and explanation on this part is required in more detail. Thank you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There seems to be no serious mistranslation or difficult-to-read English expression in this paper. But as a whole it needs to be more corrected in English in a way to improve its readability.

Author Response

I am grateful for your thoughtful evaluation and detailed suggestions. Please allow me to address each point:

 

First, regarding the need for specific examples and their accompanying analysis:

-> The expressions have been revised, and the paper has been strengthened with detailed analyses of contemporary cases, including the Xinjiang Uyghur issue in China and the martial law crisis in Korea.

 

Second, concerning the suggestion to improve readability through more concise presentation:

-> The numerical listings on pages 10-11 have been restructured with more concise sentences while maintaining the paper's original theoretical framework.

 

Third, regarding citation completeness:

-> All necessary references have been incorporated throughout the text to ensure comprehensive academic documentation.

 

Fourth, concerning terminological precision and conceptual clarity:

-> The conceptual framework has been refined to clearly distinguish between related terms:

• '(Hyper)connectivity' has been replaced with contextually appropriate phrases such as 'characteristics of (Hyper)connectivity/connection', '(Hyper)connected', or 'interconnection'.
• 'Hyperconnectivity' has been modified to 'hyperconnection' or 'characteristics of hyperconnectivity’ as appropriate to maintain conceptual clarity.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the Laozi-Zhuangzi philosophy for its contribution to resolving challenges posed by hyper-connected society. By focusing on Dao, ziran, wu-wei, and qi, the paper has a great potential to dialogue with contemporary society marked by increasingly advanced science and technologies such as AI and social media.

 

The paper, however, requires major revisions on a few fronts. First, the argumentation is loose. For example, on p. 7, after the lengthy quotation of Daode jing ch. 2, the author states, “This passage illuminates how qi (氣) functions…” without explaining how the concept of qi is brought out; qi does not even appear in the quoted passage. The definition of qi only appears later (in p.8), suggesting that the paper needs to be reorganized.

           

Second, key terms remain undefined. For instance, “human spirit” appears in p. 7. However, as a heavily loaded theological and sociological term, it is not defined, which seriously damages the credibility of the important claim made in the last paragraph.

           

            Third, I am particularly interested in how qi plays out in this paper with great expectation. However, the outcome is a bit disappointing as the paper’s engagement with qi is minimal. Namely, qi only appears twice in the crucial section (3.2). The author does not address how qi functions in the author’s proposal of its interconnection with Dao, wuwei, and ziran helps resolve contemporary challenges.

 

            Fourth, the concrete examples are rather outdated, e.g., China’s Great Leap Forward. Since the article attempts to resolve challenges in contemporary society increasingly populated with AI and social media, more up-to-date examples are desperately needed for the author’s theoretical imagination to have practical influences.

 

The paper needs to be better streamlined. For example, in the middle of p. 3, as readers are expecting further development based on the article’s goal established in the beginning, the author writes: “This paper seeks to …,” suggesting that the article’s structure requires further revision.

 

Other minor editorial revisions are needed:

1)    The format of the quotation needs to be consistent, e.g., where to place periods and commas (p. 2, para. 4);

2)    Chapter numbers are mentioned, indicating that this article might come from a book manuscript, raising the question of whether it is suitable to publish in this journal. If so, “chapter” should be changed to “section.”;

3)    Quotation marks need to be consistent: “” or ‘’;

4)    The paper’s headings, especially under A/B/C, need to be improved, e.g., beginning p. 3, under “A. The Subject,” the author enumerates another level of sublist: “First, Second.” Then in p.4, under section 2.2, section B appears, which is very confusing;

5)    Some quotations are confusing. For example, “As Marx argued in "Grundrisse," "Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand" (Bourdieu, 2015, p. 60).” (p. 6) The reference is Bourdieu, while the text refers to Marx.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your meticulous evaluation and detailed suggestions. Let me address each point systematically:

Regarding argumentation coherence: We have developed solutions within the interconnected framework of Dao, qi, and wu-wei ziran. In examining Dao, we address foundational principles. Chapter 2 of Laozi provides crucial insight into the internal basis and essential nature of connectivity, which resonates with Hannah Arendt's conception of thinking. We have strengthened this theoretical foundation.

The concept of qi illuminates the logic of connectivity. We have refined the title and incorporated Zhuangzi quotations to elucidate this concept. Furthermore, we have included contemporary examples of hyperconnected society's challenges, such as the Xinjiang Uyghur case, to demonstrate qi's connective function. The martial law declaration in Korea is now examined in the "Hyperconnected Society and Its Problems" section, supported by comprehensive new analyses. Within this framework, qi (氣) functions as the operative force of Dao's universal principle. Rather than imposing moral distinctions, Dao encompasses all phenomena, seeking harmony through the interplay of opposing forces—manifested as yin-yang qi—by understanding their essential nature.

Regarding terminology: We have precisely defined and contextualized terms such as connection, hyperconnection, connectivity, and hyperconnectivity throughout the text. Ambiguous expressions have been revised for clarity. For instance, references to "human spirit" have been reframed as: "the fundamental nature of consciousness and cultivation of proper psychological and intellectual foundations."

Concerning qi's conceptual role: Although we initially focused on qi's functional relationship with Dao and wu-wei ziran, assuming its basic concept was widely understood, we acknowledge this oversight. We have now thoroughly articulated qi's fundamental role in connectivity while clarifying the organic structure and interaction among Dao as fundamental principle, qi as connective logic, and wu-wei ziran as the mechanism of desire regulation.

Regarding contemporary examples: We have incorporated detailed case studies, particularly the Xinjiang Uyghur situation involving surveillance through facial recognition, internet monitoring, and CCTV control. Additionally, we have expanded the conceptualization of hyperconnectivity beyond information technology to encompass global interconnection through globalization, space-time compression through transportation and communication advances, object-to-object connections through IT and AI development, and enhanced awareness of human-material connectivity based on biological and philosophical perspectives. We have also emphasized how local issues now have global implications, citing examples such as the resource and inflation impacts of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the worldwide spread of the U.S. financial crisis, the international ramifications of the Israel conflict, cross-continental environmental effects, Chinese plastic waste reaching Jeju's shores, and fishing nets found in orca whales. These examples demonstrate our increasingly dense, immediate, and extensive interconnectivity compared to historical patterns.

Structural and editorial revisions: We have refined the prose throughout and can offer this concise summary: This study examines solutions to hyperconnected society's challenges through the philosophical framework of Laozi and Zhuangzi's Daoist thought. Through a broad conceptualization of hyperconnected society, it analyzes Dao as fundamental principle, qi as connective logic, and wu-wei ziran as the mechanism of desire regulation.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has undergone significant improvements since the first submission, demonstrating promising signs for publication. It includes more contemporary examples from Korea, Japan, and AI, in contrast to the outdated models from fifty years ago in the previous manuscript. However, major revisions are still necessary before it can be considered for publication for the following reasons.

 

First, coherence remains a significant issue in the paper. For instance, the abstract outlines three critical challenges in the hyperconnected world, which serve as the “backbone” of this article. However, none of these levels is defined, demonstrating a lack of clarity. Additionally, the introduction mentions “gaps” in existing research, yet the main body of the text addresses these gaps only once (p. 8).

 

Second, the article is poorly organized. Page 13 is an example of poor readability with points and subpoints. The subheadings in the Conclusions also speak of poor structuring. They should be paragraphs with better-managed organization.

 

Third, the Conclusions introduce new topics, including wildfires in the U.S. and Canada, disposables during the COVID-19 pandemic (pp. 15-16). The Conclusion is not the appropriate place to further elaborate on the proposed theoretical work. Additionally, the concept of humans as the primary actors (p. 15) is introduced without prior mention in the main body, raising serious concerns about the author(s)’ inclination toward anthropocentrism. The Conclusion is where the author summarizes the main points of the article and suggests new direction(s). However, the author(s) intend to cover too much in one article, which ultimately harms its integrity.

 

Other minor editorial revisions are needed:

1. Quotation marks are inconsistent throughout the article, with ‘’ and “”, which might be the result of multiple authorship. However, this may explain the incoherence inherent in this article;
2. In the “Online sources,” an article from Digital Today is cited. However, nowhere can it be found in the article. So is the reference to “Yonhap News.”

Author Response

Thank you for your meticulous evaluation and detailed suggestions. Let me address each point systematically:

1. “First, coherence remains a significant issue in the paper. For instance, the abstract outlines three critical challenges… the text addresses these gaps only once (p. 8).”

1) Reply: To minimize potential misunderstandings, we have revised both the sentences and the section title. We have reconceptualized the original categories as follows:

• "Subject" → the individual cognitive level (where connected subjects experience confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance);
• "Field" → the structural level (where systemic forces diminish individual autonomy and create unpredictable outcomes);
• "Problems amplified by subject-field interaction" → the amplified social level (where the interaction between individual and structural factors intensifies social division, isolation, systemic risks, and cascading failures).
• These conceptual frameworks are explained in greater detail within the main text.

2.1 The individual cognitive level: Understanding Connectivity and Subject-Related Challenges

2.2 The structural level: Field-Related Issues and Social Ramifications

2.3 The amplified social level: Derivative Social Issues Amplified by Subject-Field Problems

2) Regarding “these gaps…”

First, this study fills gaps in existing research regarding problems in hyper-connected society, and second, by integrating Daoist thought with connection theory that supports hyper-connected society, it provides a theoretical foundation for reconceptualizing the limitations of hyper-connectivity and resolving associated issues."

These two claims are substantiated in the main text.

The first claim is addressed in Section 2, “Hyper-connected Society and Its Problems,” where we analyze issues in hyper-connected society through three frameworks mentioned above: 2.1 The individual cognitive level: Understanding Connectivity and Subject-Related Challenges, 2.2 The structural level: Field-Related Issues and Social Ramifications, 2.3 The amplified social level: Derivative Social Issues Amplified by Subject-Field Problems, which correspond to the subject of connection, the field, and problems amplified by subject-field interaction.

The second claim is examined in Section 3, “Laozi-Zhuangzi Philosophy and Issues in Hyper-connected Society.” Specifically, we explore this through three subsections: “Dao (道) and the Essence of Connection: Understanding Fundamental Principles,” “Qi (氣) and Connection,” and “Wu-wei Ziran and the Harmony of Connection: Controlling Desire.”

To eliminate potential misunderstandings while incorporating the reviewer's suggestions, we have revised the text. The newly modified and added sentences are provided from page 3(However, previous discussions of hyper-connected society…) to page 4 (…and cascading failures).

2. “Second, the article is poorly organized. Page 13 is an example…. The subheading in the Conclusion …. better-managed organization.”

• Reply: Sentences have been revised without points and subpoints.
• Reply: Through careful editing, we have eliminated potential misunderstandings, and removed the subheadings.

3. “Third, the Conclusions introduce new topics, …harms its integrity.”

• Reply: We removed or modified the cases in the conclusion section to avoid any misunderstanding. For instance, we removed the COVID-related content while incorporating the wildfire information directly into the text.
• Reply: We revised the explanation of anthropocentric tendencies to eliminate potential misunderstandings.
• We edited and modified sentences carefully to avoid misunderstandings, making changes according to the request.

4. “Other minor editorial revisions”

• Reply: We revised the quotation marks and other editorial elements to maintain consistency throughout.
• The footnote for the section you pointed out had been deleted following another reviewer's request; however, we have removed only the problematic parts and reincorporated it into the main text, clearly citing both Digital Today and Yonhap News as sources in endnote 24). Thank you for your keen advice.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After this round of revision, the paper has significantly improved in terms of its logical coherence and readability by following my suggestions. The author(s)’s efforts are much appreciated. If the manuscript can be further improved in terms of more tightly integrated content to meet the standards of Religions, it will warrant publication by addressing the following concerns.

First, improve the clarity of the “hyperconnectivity” definition. The definition of could be sharpened. While the article discusses increased scale and scope, a more concise and distinct definition early on would provide a stronger foundation. For instance, the text says: “The essence of a hyperconnected society lies in 'connectivity’” (p. 1), “technological advancement has transformed the nature of connections, making them increasingly intricate and granular, ultimately giving rise to our current “hyperconnected” society (pp. 2-3), and “The current state of hyperconnectivity is unprecedented both in the diversity of connected entities and the sheer volume of connections” (p. 3). A clearer, more synthesized definition would benefit the reader.

Second, better organization of the content is needed. In section 2, the six primary issues are not integrated into the main flow of the text as either a sub-heading or tightly-knit paragraphs. Rather, they are listed as incomplete sentences, such as “First, Confirmation Bias of Connected Subjects” and “Second, Cognitive Dissonance” (pp. 4-6). If the author(s) desires to organize these issues into subheadings, then one paragraph will not warrant a subheading.

Third, another weakness in Section 2 is that while it catalogs issues well, it reads somewhat like an isolated analysis that could come from social science or media studies, and it doesn’t yet integrate the promised Daoist perspective. This is understandable—Section 2 is meant to lay out problems before solutions—but it might help to foreshadow the connection to Daoist ideas. For instance, when concluding each sublevel, a sentence could hint at how a philosophical insight might address that level (without fully resolving it yet). This would create smoother transitions into Section 3. In the current draft, the transition between Section 2 and Section 3 does exist (the text does mention that these challenges call for certain Daoist concepts), but it can be strengthened. The manuscript briefly enumerates the Daoist concepts (Dao, Qi, wu-wei, ziran) at the end of Section 2—which is great—but the integration would be cleaner if each concept were explicitly tied to the specific level or issue it mitigates.

Fourth, in terms of scholarly rigor, Section 2 could be improved by engaging with existing literature on hyperconnectivity or digital society. The content is largely presented in expository form, and while some references are included (e.g., a reference to Marx’s idea of interrelation), the author should ensure these discussions are grounded in or at least contrasted with other research. For example, when talking about confirmation bias (p. 4), “Structural Issues Leading to Decreased Subject Autonomy” and “Unpredictable Situation Development” (p. 5), and “Intensification of Social Division and Isolation” (p. 6), there are no scholarly references. It’s a minor point since the focus of the paper is philosophical, but a reader of Religions might still expect that the sociotechnical premises of the argument are well-founded. The inclusion of a few more interdisciplinary citations would enhance the rigor of Section 2.

Fifth, Section 3 lacks a more in-depth conceptual network by integrating the three elements (in the three subheadings) in terms of how these discrete blocks (Dao, Qi, Wu-wei Ziran) form a holistic concept to tackle the challenges posed by the hyperconnected society. 

Sixth, Section 3 is conceptually rich and offers meaningful insights, but to maximize its impact, the author should tighten the conceptual integration: explicitly link each Daoist concept to one or more challenges from Section 2. Some of this linkage is implied, but the reader shouldn’t have to infer too much – a sentence or two for each concept saying “this addresses the challenge of X by providing Y” would strengthen coherence.

Last but not least, check for unaddressed points to ensure coherence. Ensure that any challenge raised (e.g., privacy, algorithmic control) gets at least a nod in the solution discussion, or else remove it from the earlier list to avoid loose ends. Consistency will give the paper a polished feel.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments and consideration. Your feedback on the seven points has been tremendously helpful in enhancing the quality of this paper. We have made every effort to incorporate your suggested revisions and improvements. I would be grateful if you could review the amended manuscript at your convenience.