Information Environment: Polysemy and Place in the Categorical Apparatus

The article systematizes the use of the term "information environment" in scholarly and popular-scientific literature. It is shown that the term is used in six different disciplinary contexts, each investing it with its own meaning: philosophical-methodological ("world of information," Shreider), informatics-legal ("conditions and means," Smolyan), pedagogical ("educational environment," Robert, Osmolovskaya), sociological ("communication environment," Lievrouw), library-bibliographic ("comfortable environment," Parshukova), and military-informational ("set of actors," Dictionary of Military Terms). A comparative analysis of the six approaches is carried out, revealing the absence of a single referent. In some cases the term designates conditions (technical, legal), in others — substance ("world of information"), in others — structure (organized space), in others — actors (persons, organizations, systems). This polysemy makes the term "impure" for strict ontological analysis. The place of the term in the categorical apparatus of the MBM series is shown. "Information environment" may be used as an umbrella, survey concept, but not as a strict ontological category. For strict analysis, the series uses: information field (substance), information space (form), infosphere (local projection at levels F2–F3), and inforeality (universal projection of EFOS). A comparison with Floridi is made: his infosphere is close to the "information environment" in scope but includes both physical and virtual reality. It is noted that the infosphere in the MBM series is a biospheric projection, not only a human one. A conclusion is drawn about the inexpediency of using the term "information environment" as a strict category within the MBM series. The term retains value as an umbrella, survey concept. All statements about EFOS and projections are hypothetical in character. Version 1.2. License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.