Abstract: Cyberism has evolved from an initial doctrine into an emerging field concerned with the relationship between humans and cyberspace. As opposed to treating digital transformation merely as a technological process, cyberism examines the broader reconfiguration of human life under pervasive cyber mediation conditions. This study proposes a four-layer disciplinary framework for cyberism and clarifies the internal logic of its disciplinary structure. Methodologically, this study combines a literature review, conceptual analysis, and theoretical reconstruction to synthesize earlier discussions on cyberism and reorganize them into a coherent theoretical framework. The four layers do not constitute a parallel taxonomy but form an ontological ladder beginning with embodied perception, extending to collective order, advancing toward mental autonomy, and ultimately confronting questions of meaning. Each layer realizes the conditions established by the previous layer and sets the structural constraints for the next one. Thus, the four-layer structure provides a systematic framework for understanding the progressive transformation of human experience in cyber-mediated environments. The first layer is the perception–interaction layer, which serves as the starting point of the analysis. It examines how cyber technologies reshape human sensory channels, bodily experiences, and perceptual worlds, including the extension of external senses, the digitalization of internal bodily states, and new forms of technologically mediated perception. In this context, the human body functions as an interface that can be extended, adjusted, and partially programmed to transform perception and interaction conditions. The second layer is the society–civilization layer, which explores how technologically mediated perception reshapes collective life and institutional structures. Differences in sensory access, interface capacity, and the ability to disconnect may generate new forms of inequality in cyber-mediated societies. In addition, algorithms and codes increasingly operate as tools of governance, shaping decision-making and social coordination, while digital memory systems reshape historical continuity and cultural transmission. The third layer is the cognition–security layer, in which cognition and security are considered together. Understanding the mind in cyberspace requires attention not only to cognitive processes, but also to how they can be influenced, intruded upon, or disrupted within programmable information environments. Therefore, this layer addresses the cognitive structures, information ecologies, mental autonomy, and defense mechanisms against manipulation, interference, and cyber-induced pathological conditions. The fourth layer is the existence–meaning layer, which addresses philosophical questions regarding identity, truth, responsibility, mortality, and the meaning of life in the cyber age. As memory becomes increasingly externalized, identity is distributed across digital platforms and technological systems begin to simulate or extend aspects of cognition. Cyberism raises new questions regarding the conditions of human existence in cyber-mediated realities. Illustrative case studies are provided for each layer to demonstrate the applicability of the framework. Building on this four-layer disciplinary framework, this study further proposes a three-level methodological agenda for cyberism which consists of engineering and technological studies, empirical social science research, and philosophical reflection. The engineering and technological studies examine infrastructures such as interfaces, sensory technologies, data systems, and algorithms that shape cyber interactions. The empirical social science research investigates how these technologies transform social practices, governance, institutions, and emerging forms of inequality. The philosophical reflection addresses the broader questions of identity, truth, responsibility, and ethics in digitally mediated environments. Finally, this study clarifies the irreplaceability of Cyberism by examining its relationship with the classical philosophy of technology. It also declares that Cyberism has evolved from “naming” to the “construction of a disciplinary genealogy” and officially entered the stage of disciplinary institutionalization.