The subject of the article is what the paradigmatic framework for a universal information science or informatics should be and what kind of science we can expect it to be. The mechanistic and rationalistic information processing paradigm of cognitive science is the dominating research program in this research area which is heavily dominated by computer science and informatics. It is pointed out that this logical and mechanistic approach is unable to give an understanding of human signification and its basis in the connotations of biological and social relationships. The paper then discusses – on the basis of previous work – the ontological and epistemological problems of the idea of “information science” and constructs an alternative non‐mechanistic view based on the idea of autopoiesis of second order cybernetics and Peirce’s concept of chaos and evolution. These ideas are related to the cybersemiotic framework for transdisciplinary research of information and communication which the author has developed in other papers. Cybersemiotics is an integration of second order cybernetics, Peirce’s triadic semiosis and Wittgenstein’s theory of language game to a non‐Cartesian cognitive science.

Key words: cognitive science, second order cybernetics, semiotics, information science, ontological foundation, biosemiotics, cybersemiotics, epistemology, chaos, autopoiesis, semiosphere.

This paper summarizes recent attempts by this author to create a transdisciplinary, non-Cartesian and non-reductionistic framework for information studies in natural, social, and technological systems. To confront, in a scientific way, the problems of modern information technology where phenomenological man is dealing with socially constructed texts in algorithmically based digital bit-machines we need a theoretical framework spanning from physics over biology and technological design to phenomenological and social production of signification and meaning. I am working with such pragmatic theories as second order cybernetics (coupled with autopolesis theory), Lakoffs biologically oriented cognitive semantics, Peirce’s triadic semiotics, and Wittgenstein’s pragmatic language game theory. A coherent synthesis of these theories is what the cybersemiotic framework attempts to accomplish.

Key words: cybersemiotics, information science, second order cybernetics, autopoiesis, triadic sign

This paper discusses various suggestions for a philosophical framework for a trans-disciplinary information science or a semiotic doctrine. These are: the mechanical materialistic, the pan-informational, the Luhmanian second order cybernetic approach, Peircian biosemiotics and finally the pan-semiotic approach. The limitations of each are analysed. The conclusion is that we will not have to choose between either a cybernetic-informational or a semiotic approach. A combination of a Peircian-based biosemiotics with autopoiesis theory, second order cybernetics and information science is suggested in a five-levelled cybersemiotic framework. The five levels are 1) a level of Firstness, 2) a level of mechanical matter, energy and force as Secondness, 3) a cybernetic and thermodynamic level of information, 4) a level of sign games and 5) a level of conscious language games. These levels are then used to differentiate levels of information systems, sign and language games in human communication. In our model Maturana and Varela’s description of the logic of the living as autopoietic is accepted and expanded with Luhmann’s generalization of the concept of autopoiesis, to cover also to psychological and socio-communicative systems. Adding a Peircian concept of semiosis to Luhmann’s theory in the framework of biosemiotics enables us to view the interplay of mind and body as a sign play. I have in a previous publication (see list of references) suggested the term “sign play” pertaining to exosemiotics processes between animals in the same species by stretching Wittgenstein’s language concept into the animal world of signs. The new concept of intrasemiotics designates the semiosis of the interpenetration between biological and psychological autopoietic systems as Luhmann defines them in his theory. One could therefore view intrasemiotics as the interplay between Lorenz’ biological defined motivations and Freud’s Id, understood as the psychological aspect of many of the natural drives. In the last years of the development of his theory, Lorenz worked with the idea of how emotional feedback introduced just a little learning through pleasurable feelings into instinctive systems because, as he reasoned, there must be some kind of reward of going through instinctive movements, thus making possible the appetitive searching behaviour for sign stimuli. But he never found an acceptable way of modelling motivation in biological science. I am suggesting a cybersemiotic model to combine these approaches, defining various concepts like thought-semiotics, phenosemiotic and intrasemiotics, combining them with the already known concepts of exosemiotics, ecosemiotics, and endosemiotics into a new view of self-organizing semiotic processes in living systems. Thus a new semiotic level of description is generated, where mind-body interactions can be understood on the same description level.

Key words: Cybersemiotics, cybernetics, semiotics, information, self-organisation

Purpose: – The purpose of this theoretical research paper in philosophy and theory of science is to argue for the necessity of developing transdisciplinary frameworks in order to be able to interact in an interdisciplinary fashion. Design/methodology/approach: – Reflects on interdisciplinarity and the prerequisites of doing scientific and scholarly research and develops a non‐reductionistic and transdisciplinary view on human knowing in the light of the growing development of interdisciplinary practices and sciences. Findings: – It is argued that there is at present an incompatibility between scientific and phenomenological approaches to cognition and communication. A broader framework is, therefore, needed to encompass both, if one wants to make coherent theories and models in this subject area. The work, therefore, focuses on the relation between information science and semiotics and creates a framework for the analysis of both meaning and truth. Research limitations/implications: – The framework is very abstract here in the description. It has to be developed in detail and its effect demonstrated in practical examples. Practical implications: – They have to be judged both on how well their descriptions fit better than others with what actually goes on in the sciences and humanities and on their usefulness to function as a common map coordinating interdisciplinary work. Originality/value: – A trans‐scientific framework, which is suggested as a basis for the sciences and humanities to understand themselves in relation to other kinds of knowledge such as philosophy, art, religion, political ideology, etc. New also are the visual structural models.

Key words: Scientific management, Cybernetics, Information science