Dao Ontology: An Axiomatic Generative Framework of Ontology Based on Information Structure and Closed-Loop Generation

Dao Ontology proposes a generative ontological framework aimed at reframing the fundamental question of "being" in traditional metaphysics. Departing from classical substance-based ontology, the paper identifies its inherent limitations and introduces a theoretical shift from static entities to dynamic processes of generation. The core structure of the framework consists of three foundational layers: a non-objectifiable foundational constraint (Dao), an informational mediating system, and a world-unfolding mechanism driven by recursive feedback. Within this structure, ontology is no longer defined as a set of independent entities, but as a continuously unfolding generative process operating under structural constraints and mediated through information. The paper formalizes this generative architecture into an axiomatic system, introducing fundamental axioms including the non-objectifiability constraint axiom, the informational mapping axiom, and the feedback closure axiom. A recursive evolution function describes the dynamic self-updating behavior of the system, thereby establishing a closed-loop generative system. On the level of philosophical genealogy, the paper provides a structural comparative reconstruction of major philosophical traditions, including Laozi, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein. It argues that classical ontologies are constrained either by substance-oriented assumptions or epistemological boundaries, and reinterprets them through the generative structural framework of ontology. The theoretical contribution of the paper lies in transforming ontology from a static theory of being into a dynamic theory of becoming, reformulating the central question from "what is being" to "how being is generated," and positioning information structure as the mediating mechanism between foundational constraints and manifested reality. Finally, the paper acknowledges that further work is required in formalization rigor, precise definition of feedback functions, and empirical correspondence mechanisms. Nevertheless, it presents a systematic alternative framework to classical metaphysics grounded in generative structural ontology.