FIS - Quo Vadis?

Back in 1994 Pedro Marijuan stated:
"The use of the term information in all these provinces is not incorrect, but its overall coherence has become minimal. It seems that every aspect of human endeavor or biological behavior --or even of cosmic evolution-- contains and processes information; but there is no glimpse yet as to how such overextended acceptations can be consistently conceptualized.
The advancement in the solution of this puzzling concept, entrenched into the foundations of numerous disciplines, may demand drastic changes in view --perhaps including the reflection on what it actually means to establish a 'disciplinary' point of view. "
Given that this forum possibly includes some of the best minds on the planet in res informationis
 I can't help asking the quo vadis question (adumbrated by Ted Goranson in his paper) about the future of FIS.
Potential avenues might be:
1. Remain a virtual meeting place of interdisciplinary opinions within the framework of a desultory online conference - complemented by a biennial encounter in the real world.
2. Develop strategic intra-disciplinary groups (say on the model of the Cochrane Foundation in Medicine) which produce annual reviews of the state of information within their specialties (like Luciano's 'Philosophy ofInformation' papers or Rafael's 'The Concept of Information'). Such groups could act asintelligent agents for FIS members by fielding new ideas as well as undertake horizontal dialogues across their family of disciplines representing the current state of knowledge.
3. Create a quarterly FIS e-journal with issues devoted to specific 'big picture' theories or intradisciplinary review topics: e.g. informational biology, mathematics of information (Wolfgang's planned publication may fit the bill here).
4. Develop a broader societal agenda maybe under the banner of Ted's 'New Science' or
Elohim's systems approach to the politics of information. Rafael and Luciano's advocacy of an informational ethic - possibly based on the teleology of a New Science - has at the very least implications for
how information is envisioned and applied in global computing environments. Likewise Terry's fractal dynamic
of the psyche and Karl's partitional counting challenge the foundations of their specific disciplines.

Final Impressions
What I have found most intriguing about these sessions is the 'mystical corner' which one
glimpses from behind the curtain of strongly reasoning minds: Rafael's lyrical rationality,
John C's underlying Taoism, Ted's fondness for cabbalistic cosmology, Pedro's predilection
for mythical metaphor or Terry's faith in Jungian geometry. Even Jerry's more pragmatic and
strategic rationality has occasionally knocked on metaphysical doors.
Could it be that the subjunctive path leads to indicative truths while scholastic scientism
creates a materialist dream?

'Any distinction is wholly eyemaginary' (Terry Marks-Tarlow quoting Louis Kauffman).

This conference has been notable in the production of many fruitful cul-de-sacs - abduction, meaning,
power laws, optimisation, agency, information and time, to name a few.

Maybe it is information herself that has been leading us up the garden path all the while.
My sincere thanks to all for sharing their wisdom in this forum - it has been a delightful and
mind enhancing experience. And I'd like to vote a special pat on the back for Pedro for his
masterful and entertaining coordination of the event.
John H

The sessions have thown up some fruitful clues for a future unifying theory

Cochrane model
Reductionism
Scholastic formalism
Commercial pragmatism