Premium
The information‐system‐processing triad: Common core of human disciplines
Author(s) -
Frischknecht Federico,
Van Gigch John P.
Publication year - 1989
Publication title -
behavioral science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.371
H-Index - 45
eISSN - 1099-1743
pISSN - 0005-7940
DOI - 10.1002/bs.3830340402
Subject(s) - triad (sociology) , epistemology , dialog box , computer science , positivism , cognitive science , notation , transitive relation , counterpoint , sociology , psychology , linguistics , philosophy , social science , world wide web , pedagogy , mathematics , combinatorics
This essay intends to show that equivalents to the triad INFORMATION‐SYSTEM‐PROCESSING can be found in many disciplines. It also intends to explain how this triad can account for all symbolic phenomena. After presenting the triad, the first part introduces the informatic approach: (1) background on INFORMATION SYSTEMS; (2) basic features of structure, meaning, and manipulation associated with SYSTEM PROCESSING; (3) the triadic equivalence, through notation change, explaining INFORMATION‐PROCESSING‐SYSTEMS (IPS). The second part presents the IPS triad in cross‐level research concerning abstract, artificial, and natural systems. Finally, a few reflections are drawn about the universality of systematization and the particularity of its roles in different disciplines. Chronology This article has an unusual history. It begins with the first author's “Informatic Philosophy of Behavioral Sciences,” published in the journal (Frischknecht, 1986, 31, 162‐172), written in Argentina. The essay sparked the second author's strong critique, from California: “Misapplication of the Metasystem Concept” (van Gigch, 1987a, 32, 232‐233). Behavioral Science invited the Argentine professor to hold a dialog with his American colleague. The tough reply was “Positivist Bias Misses the Symbol System Point” (Frischknecht, 1987, 32, 234‐237). By unbelievable chance, both authors met in Buenos Aires. By intellectual necessity they checked ideas and discussed a first draft for this paper. By coauthorship transitivity, the exchange of papers and comments involved the French Professor Jean‐Louis Le Moigne (van Gigch and Le Moigne, 1989, 34, 128‐147). Now the dialog has become a trialog. By nonlinear recursion, this modest episode might start a fractal of unpredictable complexity. This article is still far from that goal: it is just one state in the never‐ending process of systematizing knowledge about symbol systems. Readers are asked to participate in this dialectic research endeavor converging, it is hoped, toward a better understanding of human disciplines and behavior.